https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369708
--- Comment #63 from Yunying Sun ---
> > Questions left:
> > 1. > N/A*%check is present and all tests pass.
> > Is the %check section a MUST?
>
> it's a SHOULD
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382850
--- Comment #4 from Igor Gnatenko ---
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/libtoml.spec
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/libtoml-0-1.20161213git03e8a3a.fc26.src.rpm
--
You are receiving
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1402540
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System ---
git-fame-1.2.0-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1402540
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1402164
--- Comment #4 from Devin Henderson ---
Thank you Dhanesh and Michael! I will read through your notes and links and see
if I can come up with a better spec file.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393947
--- Comment #5 from greg.helli...@gmail.com ---
New SRPM:
https://fedorapeople.org/~greghellings/cinch/cinch-0.2.1-2.fc25.src.rpm
I added the %license line
I switched python-devel to python2-devel instead
I'm guessing that's what you were
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1403417
--- Comment #7 from Joël Krähemann ---
Hi
Just updated gsequencer.spec and have taken a look at the review. About certain
points I'm unsure.
This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1402164
--- Comment #3 from Michael Schwendt ---
> I have made as little changes to the original rpms as possible.
Why that? What changes would you have liked to make?
> Summary:Fully colorized df clone written in
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382850
--- Comment #3 from Michael Schwendt ---
> Release:1git%{shortcommit}%{?dist}
Does not follow the versioning guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning#Snapshot_packages
> %package devel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404044
Michael Schwendt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||177841
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401302
--- Comment #3 from Michael Schwendt ---
> %description
> Arcus library contains C++ code and Python 3 bindings
Then you will need "BuildRequires: gcc-c++" as per this year's changes to the
buildroots to make them
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1397051
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System ---
caffeine-2.3.5-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401276
--- Comment #4 from Eric Smith ---
Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/python-grako/python-grako.spec
SRPM URL:
https://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/python-grako/python-grako-3.18.0-2.fc24.src.rpm
Good catch! I've
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404044
Bug ID: 1404044
Summary: Review Request: brooklyn - model, deploy, manage
application
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
Severity: medium
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404043
--- Comment #1 from Jarod Wilson ---
There isn't an upstream rdma-core release just yet, so the tarball was
generated using:
$ git archive --prefix rdma-core-12/ --output
~/rpmbuild/SOURCES/rdma-core-12.tgz HEAD
A release
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404043
Bug ID: 1404043
Summary: Review Request: rdma-core - RDMA core userspace
libraries and daemons
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1396232
Igor Gnatenko changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1374899
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System ---
quassel-irssi-0-2.20161120gitcbd9bd7.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7
stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this
bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1402456
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1402456
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System ---
python3-idna-2.1-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-940fb9734f
--
You are receiving this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1402456
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System ---
python3-idna-2.1-1.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-3faec4c6db
--
You are receiving this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1398949
--- Comment #20 from Jeremy Newton ---
(In reply to Tom "spot" Callaway from comment #19)
> (In reply to Jeremy Newton from comment #18)
>
> > Well any libraries needed for run-time should be placed into the main
> >
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404012
Bug ID: 1404012
Summary: Review Request: module-build-service - The Module
Build Service for Modularity
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404012
--- Comment #1 from Ralph Bean ---
This package built on koji:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16857938
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1397842
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System ---
python-cccolutils-1.5-1.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-0137e43188
--
You are receiving
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1402540
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System ---
git-fame-1.2.0-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-a20a6ee060
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1402540
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System ---
git-fame-1.2.0-1.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-8fd51877c2
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1402540
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|POST
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1402540
--- Comment #8 from Raphael Groner ---
Please fix (again) while importing:
- Please use License: MPLv2.0
- Remove unneeded Requires: python3-setuptools
- I think also the package has to explicitly 'Require: git' as
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1398949
--- Comment #19 from Tom "spot" Callaway ---
(In reply to Jeremy Newton from comment #18)
> Well any libraries needed for run-time should be placed into the main
> package, and any libraries or header/source files needed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1387669
--- Comment #9 from Vasiliy Glazov ---
Oh, sorry, I am not able to be a sponsor. I have not enough experience for it.
May be Rex will sponsor.
But I make review of your package.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382755
Antonio Trande changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1398949
--- Comment #18 from Jeremy Newton ---
(In reply to Tom "spot" Callaway from comment #17)
> (In reply to Tom "spot" Callaway from comment #16)
> > Do you have another package (besides plee-the-bear) that depends on the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1398949
--- Comment #17 from Tom "spot" Callaway ---
(In reply to Tom "spot" Callaway from comment #16)
> Do you have another package (besides plee-the-bear) that depends on the bear
> library?
Replying to myself, I see that
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1398949
Tom "spot" Callaway changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401334
Randy Barlow changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1312303
--- Comment #5 from Ralf Corsepius ---
Spec URL:
https://corsepiu.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-Net-LDAP-Server-Test.spec
SRPM URL:
https://corsepiu.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-Net-LDAP-Server-Test-0.21-2.fc26.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401334
--- Comment #7 from Randy Barlow ---
Miro, it looks like upstream made a 2.0.1 release that has the license file.
You might want to package that one instead.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401276
--- Comment #3 from Iryna Shcherbina ---
Thank you for the changes.
(In reply to Eric Smith from comment #2)
> The reason for the for loop that changes the shebang and perms for only one
> file:
> 1) copied from another
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401334
--- Comment #6 from Randy Barlow ---
Thanks Miro, upstream responded quickly! Also I hadn't noticed the BSD in the
setup.py. Since that is there, I think we can proceed and you can add the
license file whenever
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1387669
--- Comment #8 from Wolnei Junior ---
Full review attach to https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1037427
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1403381
--- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/microdnf
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1037427
--- Comment #5 from Wolnei Junior ---
After run fedora-review tool:
[!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
Note: Could not download Source0: https://launchpad.net/~andrew-crew-
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1403381
Neal Gompa changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1403381
--- Comment #4 from Igor Gnatenko ---
Spec URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/microdnf.spec
SRPM URL:
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/microdnf-1-1.fc26.src.rpm
Jason, Neal,
* IMO
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1403417
Michael Schwendt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1386774
Rex Dieter changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(rdie...@math.unl. |
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1398949
--- Comment #15 from MartinKG ---
(In reply to Jeremy Newton from comment #14)
> Package Review
> ==
>
> Legend:
> [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
> [ ] = Manual review needed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1403734
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
Fixed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1403734
--- Comment #2 from Jon Ciesla ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/perl-Sub-Quote
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1402540
--- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/git-fame
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359914
--- Comment #33 from Jon Ciesla ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/lollypop
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1402456
--- Comment #2 from Jon Ciesla ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python3-idna
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401337
--- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-zeroconf
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393796
--- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/golang-github-go-errors-error
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1375765
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|CLOSED |ON_QA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1403734
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1395244
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1403734
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302744
--- Comment #6 from Mathieu Bridon ---
Port is now randomized in the latest upstream release, here's the new package.
Spec URL:
https://bochecha.fedorapeople.org/packages/python-resumable-urlretrieve.spec
SRPM URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369708
--- Comment #62 from Dan Horák ---
(In reply to Yunying Sun from comment #61)
> (In reply to Dan Horák from comment #60)
> > formal review is here, see the notes explaining OK* and BAD statuses below:
> > ...
> > So almost
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369708
--- Comment #61 from Yunying Sun ---
(In reply to Dan Horák from comment #60)
> formal review is here, see the notes explaining OK* and BAD statuses below:
> ...
> So almost good, but please answer my question (and/or
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1403734
Bug ID: 1403734
Summary: Review Request: perl-Sub-Quote - Efficient generation
of subroutines via string eval
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1403724
Bug ID: 1403724
Summary: Review Request: php-justinrainbow-json-schema4 - A
library to validate a json schema
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1312303
--- Comment #4 from Jitka Plesnikova ---
Source file is ok
Summary is ok
License is ok
Description is ok
URL and Source0 are ok
All tests passed
$ rpm -qp --requires perl-Net-LDAP-Server-Test-0.21-1.fc26.noarch.rpm |
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1387669
--- Comment #7 from Vasiliy Glazov ---
I am think that "make review request" mean that you need make full review (with
run and check fedora-review) with actual package and responsive packager.
And if you update SPEC and
66 matches
Mail list logo