[Bug 1550595] Review Request: tpm2-abrmd-selinux - SELinux policies for tpm2-abrmd
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1550595 --- Comment #35 from dac.overr...@gmail.com --- This packaging causes issues: # dnf install tpm2-abrmd Last metadata expiration check: 0:21:33 ago on Tue 10 Jul 2018 07:31:51 AM CEST. Dependencies resolved. = Package ArchVersion RepositorySize = Installing: tpm2-abrmdx86_64 2.0.0-1.fc29 rawhide 101 k Installing dependencies: checkpolicy x86_64 2.8-1.fc29 rawhide 336 k policycoreutils-python-utils noarch 2.8-4.fc29 rawhide 64 k python3-IPy noarch 0.81-22.fc29 rawhide 42 k python3-audit x86_64 2.8.4-3.fc29 rawhide 80 k python3-libsemanage x86_64 2.8-2.fc29 rawhide 125 k python3-policycoreutils noarch 2.8-4.fc29 rawhide 1.7 M selinux-policynoarch 3.14.2-26.fc29 rawhide 114 k selinux-policy-minimumnoarch 3.14.2-26.fc29 rawhide 12 M tpm2-abrmd-selinuxnoarch 2.0.0-1.fc29 rawhide 19 k tpm2-tss x86_64 2.0.0-2.fc29 rawhide 258 k Transaction Summary = Install 11 Packages Total download size: 15 M Installed size: 39 M Is this ok [y/N]: n -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/2HA2X4CTTTHC6UUPFDCM2P4NPC4GLLRX/
[Bug 1272235] Review Request: distribution-gpg-keys - Keys of various Linux distributions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1272235 Carl George changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED CC||carl@george.computer Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2018-07-09 22:52:32 --- Comment #8 from Carl George --- This has been available since https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/distribution-gpg-keys-1.3-1.fc22 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/SRFJ37GZZ544IFGAPS7AOTL2KEJ5UYN5/
[Bug 1599312] Review Request: python-trololio - Trollius and asyncio compatibility library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1599312 --- Comment #3 from Neal Gompa --- I'll condition out the Python 2 subpackage for only EPEL 7 and Fedora releases that have it, then. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/OUGROAN64UK4EKHDNSU72MQCNKGM452N/
[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 --- Comment #17 from Brandon Nielsen --- New spec URL: https://bitbucket.org/nielsenb/mspgcc-fedora/raw/c1bb3dd343d496c17d7adf11c8df7b014d8cb12e/msp430-elf-toolchain.spec New SRPM URL: https://bitbucket.org/nielsenb/mspgcc-fedora/downloads/msp430-elf-toolchain-6.0.1.0-1.src.rpm Rpmlint still shows the download link as broken, but I believe that's because it doesn't follow redirects? TI appears to redirect twice before the actual download. I see the following during the build: extracting debug info from /home/nielsenb/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/msp430-elf-toolchain-6.0.1.0-1.x86_64/usr/lib64/gcc/msp430-elf/7.3.1/plugin/libcp1plugin.so.0.0.0 /usr/lib/rpm/sepdebugcrcfix: Updated 35 CRC32s, 0 CRC32s did match. cpio: msp430-gcc-7.3.1.24-source-full/build/binutils/binutils/arlex.c: Cannot stat: No such file or directory cpio: msp430-gcc-7.3.1.24-source-full/build/binutils/binutils/arlex.l: Cannot stat: No such file or directory cpio: msp430-gcc-7.3.1.24-source-full/build/binutils/binutils/arparse.c: Cannot stat: No such file or directory cpio: msp430-gcc-7.3.1.24-source-full/build/binutils/binutils/arparse.h: Cannot stat: No such file or directory cpio: msp430-gcc-7.3.1.24-source-full/build/binutils/binutils/arparse.y: Cannot stat: No such file or directory cpio: msp430-gcc-7.3.1.24-source-full/build/binutils/ld/ldgram.c: Cannot stat: No such file or directory cpio: msp430-gcc-7.3.1.24-source-full/build/binutils/ld/ldgram.h: Cannot stat: No such file or directory cpio: msp430-gcc-7.3.1.24-source-full/build/binutils/ld/ldgram.y: Cannot stat: No such file or directory cpio: msp430-gcc-7.3.1.24-source-full/build/binutils/ld/ldlex.c: Cannot stat: No such file or directory cpio: msp430-gcc-7.3.1.24-source-full/build/binutils/ld/ldlex.l: Cannot stat: No such file or directory cpio: msp430-gcc-7.3.1.24-source-full/build/gcc/gcc/cfns.gperf: Cannot stat: No such file or directory cpio: msp430-gcc-7.3.1.24-source-full/build/gdb/opcodes/msp430-decode.opc: Cannot stat: No such file or directory 149256 blocks The resulting compiler seems to work, and it's not clear to me what step of the build is generating the errors. Finally, poked my head into the Embedded SIG IRC channel, but it was just me and ChanServ. I'll check in again when I have some free time. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/EWVM2EO53S4NVTEB5FG63S3XFSEHC4TH/
[Bug 1597391] Review Request: mediawiki-backtick-code - mediawiki extension - allows inline code snippets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1597391 --- Comment #7 from Robert-André Mauchin --- %defattr(-,root,root,-) is not needed because it is already the default, defattr is generally only used for exotic permissions (such as daemon needing to own a dir in /var/run for example) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/NJB5ELKRZJEL2FU3KT6QHYGXEJCX2T5B/
[Bug 1597391] Review Request: mediawiki-backtick-code - mediawiki extension - allows inline code snippets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1597391
--- Comment #6 from zachvatw...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #5)
> - The changelog entry must contain the Version-Release info:
>
> * Mon Jul 09 2018 Zach Villers zachvatw...@gmail.com - 0.0.3-1
>
> - Don't use:
>
> %{__install}
>
>
>just use "install" directly.
>
> - %defattr(-,root,root,-) is not needed.
>
Thanks! I'm pretty confused about how to assure the package owns the directory
without the %defattr macro. The spec files for mediawiki itself and other
mediawiki extensions dont take the same approaches for ownership and installing
files. I will keep digging though. I appreciate your speedy feedback.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/CEWIYL6C4GMCD5M77OAPWHYZ4RIKS472/
[Bug 1573634] Review Request: python3-img2pdf - a lossless images -> PDF converter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1573634 --- Comment #13 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Note, you're here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers?rd=PackageMaintainers/Join#Add_Package_to_Source_Code_Management_.28SCM.29_system_and_Set_Owner -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/MRBLC5VADPIAYYTWONTMXBQVFT5WEZQ3/
[Bug 1573634] Review Request: python3-img2pdf - a lossless images -> PDF converter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1573634 --- Comment #12 from Robert-André Mauchin --- It is not, the package is approved and William sponsored you: you can already continue with importing the package in dist-git and build it in Koji. If you have any question, just ask. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/367WZGN36EAELPLUTGZJPTW3JVK3Z5SS/
[Bug 1573634] Review Request: python3-img2pdf - a lossless images -> PDF converter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1573634 --- Comment #11 from Georg Sauthoff --- Ok, I've just commented in an existing issue (about the missing license file) in the upstream bug tracker. The author considers adding a license file for the next release. The missing license file isn't a blocker for going forward with the current version, right? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/DYD5IQASGP6ANSNGUVBFCO3SSKHFMB6H/
[Bug 1590988] Review Request: freight-container - rpm/ systemd based container utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1590988 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System --- freight-container-0-0.5.20180613gitd1d03af.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-22a2ba52ee -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/3HFYO7DKJOCPKIHOYCSRI5PA6AE3AN5M/
[Bug 1590988] Review Request: freight-container - rpm/ systemd based container utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1590988 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/KJ3RORDQF6UP7HEKLQUPXORV522LQ5QP/
[Bug 1590988] Review Request: freight-container - rpm/ systemd based container utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1590988 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- freight-container-0-0.4.20180613gitd1d03af.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-cefa4181e4 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/44KSCAQWKRVOR7DZDMNLHBLRHI7NBSXI/
[Bug 1597391] Review Request: mediawiki-backtick-code - mediawiki extension - allows inline code snippets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1597391
--- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- The changelog entry must contain the Version-Release info:
* Mon Jul 09 2018 Zach Villers zachvatw...@gmail.com - 0.0.3-1
- Don't use:
%{__install}
just use "install" directly.
- %defattr(-,root,root,-) is not needed.
No need for a new bug, the review continues here.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/JF2AFSZBNIWOF5V3REU3F7FSP2NMPZLA/
[Bug 1599421] Review Request: compat-libicu61 - Compat package with icu libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1599421 Chris Sandler changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||ch...@protonmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ch...@protonmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Chris Sandler --- Approving as per the blanket exception. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/5MPRB6FR26RU2SQAAVIR7ENQCKWEPURR/
[Bug 1599099] Review Request: wingpanel-applications-menu - Lightweight and stylish app launcher
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1599099 --- Comment #4 from Fabio Valentini --- Thanks for confirming! https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/7336 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/7337 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/7338 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/WKCMJKI3YKIBS7TDJFIJJYHGIDETJHLT/
[Bug 1597391] Review Request: mediawiki-backtick-code - mediawiki extension - allows inline code snippets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1597391 --- Comment #4 from zachvatw...@gmail.com --- Hello - I have updated the spec file as suggested (I hope) and uploaded everything to the same pagure repo. The package builds as expected via koji scratch build and I have run rpmlint on the rpm produced; rpmlint mediawiki-backtick-code-0.0.3-1.fc28.noarch.rpm mediawiki-backtick-code.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) backticks -> back ticks, back-ticks, backtracks mediawiki-backtick-code.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wikitext -> wiki text, wiki-text, extradite mediawiki-backtick-code.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US inlined -> unlined, inline, inclined mediawiki-backtick-code.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pre -> per, ore, pee mediawiki-backtick-code.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Backticks -> Back ticks, Back-ticks, Backtracks mediawiki-backtick-code.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog zachvatw...@gmail.com ['0.0.3-1.fc28', '0.0.3-1'] 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Do I need to open another bug for a re-review? Thanks, Zach -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/R5IMBGUKTYOOBRUOIGM2EQGZ7FTTVUEZ/
[Bug 1599421] New: Review Request: compat-libicu61 - Compat package with icu libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1599421 Bug ID: 1599421 Summary: Review Request: compat-libicu61 - Compat package with icu libraries Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: walter.p...@yandex.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org The process for requesting a new package repository currently requires a package review ticket even in those cases where the package has been granted an exception (either an existing blanket exception or a specific exception granted by the packaging committee). As the designated ticket for the exception process (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376885) can no longer be used due to new scm processing requirements that the ticket reporter match with scm repo requester, I'm filing a new ticket for this package. compat-libicu61 is being requested without review under the blanket exception for multi-versioned packages. It will be used to keep ABI compatibility with packages built against icu 61 after introducing icu 62 to rawhide. Existing package: icu New package: compat-libicu61 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/JUJ72RRFZTQGQHZBKA5QSILG5NEWMZ7A/
[Bug 1599099] Review Request: wingpanel-applications-menu - Lightweight and stylish app launcher
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1599099 --- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Yes, you are right. > [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and > Provides are present. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/ASRKOXV2DNZGLVUQYAOC5JAVYDPZENFZ/
[Bug 1599312] Review Request: python-trololio - Trollius and asyncio compatibility library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1599312
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Package is approved but you still need to solve the deps issue. I suggest not
packaging the Python 2 package
Issues:
===
- Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 5 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/python-trololio/review-python-
trololio/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.7/site-
packages, /usr/lib/python3.7, /usr/lib/python3.7/site-
packages/__pycache__
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
python2-trololio , python3-trololio
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Des
[Bug 1594313] Review Request: java-11-openjdk - next LTS OpenJDK for Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313 --- Comment #52 from jiri vanek --- Sorry. Done -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/63XGWCGFWD3JP4KADH3FIMBB37QHTI2K/
[Bug 1536870] Review Request: agenda - Simple, fast, no-nonsense to-do ( task) list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1536870 --- Comment #4 from Fabio Valentini --- Thanks for the review! https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/7333 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/7334 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/7335 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/MMAQL62QCMMRIXG2AYKSI6HCFYE4RHPK/
[Bug 1599312] Review Request: python-trololio - Trollius and asyncio compatibility library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1599312 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zebo...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- python-trollius has been retired on Fedora so you won't be able to install the Py2 version which depends on python2-trollius. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/SDMGZVGPBOC3KOZ45DJCV5QP7J76XMU3/
[Bug 1594313] Review Request: java-11-openjdk - next LTS OpenJDK for Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #51 from Severin Gehwolf ---
+# Temporarily disable slowdebug build for Aarch64 since it does not
+# bootcycle. See JDK-8204331.
+%ifnarch %{arm}
%global include_debug_build 1
%else
Now that comment is wrong. Please just remove it.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/TP2COAG6DNVWWFEKVSVRU4YCJTQDTOYE/
[Bug 1599149] Review Request: ghc-bsb-http-chunked - Chunked HTTP transfer encoding for bytestring builders
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1599149
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 7 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review
/ghc-bsb-http-chunked/review-ghc-bsb-http-chunked/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 133120 bytes in 17 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: Description and summary
[Bug 1599099] Review Request: wingpanel-applications-menu - Lightweight and stylish app launcher
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1599099 --- Comment #2 from Fabio Valentini --- > [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and > Provides are present. I think this item should get an "[x]" instead of "[-]" if I did my job correctly? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/5F3SKFTCMXCPGYQ6AOKXG377JFL6LTZD/
[Bug 1594313] Review Request: java-11-openjdk - next LTS OpenJDK for Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313 --- Comment #50 from jiri vanek --- spec and srpm updated new scratch: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=28096637 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/KJ23Y6IIC5RWFZEKU6W6ZGBB265CFKY5/
[Bug 1599099] Review Request: wingpanel-applications-menu - Lightweight and stylish app launcher
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1599099
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "BSD (2 clause)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)",
"Unknown or generated". 110 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/wingpanel-
applications-menu/review-wingpanel-applications-menu/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/locale/mo/LC_MESSAGES,
/usr/share/locale/mo
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners:
/usr/share/locale/mo/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/share/locale/mo
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include licens
[Bug 1594313] Review Request: java-11-openjdk - next LTS OpenJDK for Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #49 from jiri vanek ---
(In reply to Severin Gehwolf from comment #48)
> -# Temporarily disable slowdebug build for Aarch64 since it does not
> -# bootcycle. See JDK-8204331.
> -%ifnarch %{arm} %{aarch64}
> %global include_debug_build 1
> %else
> %global include_debug_build 0
> @@ -69,9 +66,6 @@
> %else
> %global include_debug_build 0
> %endif
> -%else
> -%global include_debug_build 0
> -%endif
>
> --^ This will enable slowdebug builds on ARM 32 bit, which was previously
> disabled since it takes a very long time to build. What you perhaps wanted
> was to revert the first hunk of this:
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/java-openjdk/raw/
> bc90ba687ed9f3e0f6b3948f90ce0682ccef4bd3
Facepalm
// lets measures how long that scratch will take...
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/CZVOUTKYEPRWEKO4C5HPBPY2O3J7ZDHF/
[Bug 1594313] Review Request: java-11-openjdk - next LTS OpenJDK for Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #48 from Severin Gehwolf ---
-# Temporarily disable slowdebug build for Aarch64 since it does not
-# bootcycle. See JDK-8204331.
-%ifnarch %{arm} %{aarch64}
%global include_debug_build 1
%else
%global include_debug_build 0
@@ -69,9 +66,6 @@
%else
%global include_debug_build 0
%endif
-%else
-%global include_debug_build 0
-%endif
--^ This will enable slowdebug builds on ARM 32 bit, which was previously
disabled since it takes a very long time to build. What you perhaps wanted was
to revert the first hunk of this:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/java-openjdk/raw/bc90ba687ed9f3e0f6b3948f90ce0682ccef4bd3
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/5PKVDCB5HXFR7ESQZHBH6XNAA3L4D73Q/
[Bug 1585758] Review Request: lua-cqueues - Stackable Continuation Queues for Lua
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1585758
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- This is not needed even in RHEL:
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
%if 0%{?rhel}
%clean
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
%endif
- Group: is not used in Fedora
(In reply to Jani Juhani Sinervo from comment #2)
> Here's a preliminary (unofficial) review. Some points I thought would be
> useful:
>
> - Even though this is a development package by itself, and thus as far as I
> can tell an unversioned .so-file is acceptable, I would still try to make
> the _cqueues.so into a versioned .so-file, and then maybe creating an
> symbolic link from that versioned file to _cqueues.so.
>
It's in a private dir, so it doesn't really matter.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/2LVYMBV66GOAXW5NL5S5B63Y4DMJNFFE/
[Bug 1586117] Review Request: virtio-forwarder - SR-IOV virtual function to virtio packet forwarder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1586117
--- Comment #6 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 10 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review
/virtio-forwarder/review-virtio-forwarder/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /etc/default
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/default
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Fully versioned depen
[Bug 1594313] Review Request: java-11-openjdk - next LTS OpenJDK for Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313 --- Comment #47 from jiri vanek --- All new issues should be fixed. Thank you for your review! Spec URL: https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/java-11-openjdk/java-11-openjdk.spec SRPM URL: https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/java-11-openjdk/java-11-openjdk-11.0.ea.20-1.fc28.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jvanek Work repo - https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/java-openjdk/tree/java-11-openjdk updated Scracth build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=28096115 My local build on shenandoah-arch passed -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/FSEFTOFHCBLQQBS42FWW455BOIFL4CMO/
[Bug 1586117] Review Request: virtio-forwarder - SR-IOV virtual function to virtio packet forwarder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1586117 --- Comment #5 from Frik Botha --- Think I'll publish it. Thanks! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/BW5E5KUJ2AVJVWK7ZMQEMBRBCCNT4RBS/
[Bug 1586117] Review Request: virtio-forwarder - SR-IOV virtual function to virtio packet forwarder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1586117 --- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin --- (In reply to Frik Botha from comment #3) > > For now I have left the Source0 entry as-is. These packages map to upstream > > commits rather than tags, so I do not have a corresponding archive there. Do > you > know of alternatives that would work? I could add steps to generate it from > the > specific commit hash, but I'm not sure whether that would be acceptable. Just tag the corresponding commit in Git? Or publish the release on your server. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/MB3VQL3SYQ7QR7A4JKR446SABJNO7OCH/
[Bug 1581834] Review Request: vault - Secrets storage for automated tasks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1581834 František Zatloukal changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2018-07-09 10:23:19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/N7VANXT75GRWTSFJL47F4QVQ54VGKQKL/
[Bug 1599312] New: Review Request: python-trololio - Trollius and asyncio compatibility library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1599312 Bug ID: 1599312 Summary: Review Request: python-trololio - Trollius and asyncio compatibility library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ngomp...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/ngompa/python-trololio/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00775243-python-trololio/python-trololio.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/ngompa/python-trololio/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00775243-python-trololio/python-trololio-1.0-1.fc29.src.rpm Description: Trololio provides a compatibility layer for Trollius and asyncio (aka Tulip). It addresses the differences listed in Trollius and Tulip: * Allows the use of Trollius' syntax with asyncio. * Provides missing objects and aliases for the others. * Synchronizes debug environnement variables. Fedora Account System Username: ngompa -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/LSXRNQRLHE35FTS4YJFUPOSMULPFLIWW/
[Bug 1594313] Review Request: java-11-openjdk - next LTS OpenJDK for Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313 --- Comment #46 from jiri vanek --- > > [!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 > Note: %defattr present but not needed > > > Not yet fixed. Sorry. was forgotten unintentionally. Will fix it, and elaborate on all other hints. Tahnx! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/ZEP66NDJV74FMAJ4UKG2WVWIE64GVZXZ/
[Bug 1594313] Review Request: java-11-openjdk - next LTS OpenJDK for Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313 --- Comment #45 from Severin Gehwolf --- Isn't Shenandoah expected to be present? At least on x86_64? Seems not (from the scratch build) sh-4.4# /usr/lib/jvm/java-11-openjdk/bin/java -version openjdk version "11-ea" 2018-09-25 OpenJDK Runtime Environment (build 11-ea+20) OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM (build 11-ea+20, mixed mode, sharing) sh-4.4# /usr/lib/jvm/java-11-openjdk/bin/java -XX:+UseShenandoahGC -version Unrecognized VM option 'UseShenandoahGC' Error: Could not create the Java Virtual Machine. Error: A fatal exception has occurred. Program will exit. I'd suggest to add a test like this to %check - for x86_64 and aarch64 - so that we don't regress on this unexpectedly. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/QWMSRGRFBYVIH725DYTSVSZJS3QP67JL/
[Bug 1581404] Package Review: python-rst-linker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1581404 Dan Radez changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(dra...@redhat.com | |) | --- Comment #6 from Dan Radez --- Yes, Thanks for bringing this back to my radar, I was out for a month and have not circled back to getting theses packages in. I'll get it updated this week. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/IYEZVRFHE3HJEUYJVMZYCYNDDSRITXFX/
[Bug 1594313] Review Request: java-11-openjdk - next LTS OpenJDK for Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #44 from Severin Gehwolf ---
# Temporarily disable slowdebug build for Aarch64 since it does not
# bootcycle. See JDK-8204331.
%ifnarch %{arm} %{aarch64}
%global include_debug_build 1
%else
JDK-8204331 is fixed for jdk11+20. Please re-enable the slowdebug build for
aarch64 again. Thanks.
[!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
Not yet fixed.
# remove redundant *diz and *debuginfo files
find images/%{jdkimage} -iname '*.diz' -exec rm {} \;
find images/%{jdkimage} -iname '*.debuginfo' -exec rm {} \;
---^ This is a no-op on JDK 11. Seems to stem from JDK 8 times. Please remove.
# FIXME: remove SONAME entries from demo DSOs. See
# https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=436497
I believe this is fixed with private_libs regexp. Please remove this comment.
- simplified and celared update_package.sh
Typo: cleared not celared.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/UBD5ZJSTR4MSG76E7R6EEI73JNMYP4YD/
[Bug 1586117] Review Request: virtio-forwarder - SR-IOV virtual function to virtio packet forwarder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1586117 --- Comment #3 from Frik Botha --- Thank you very much for the review. I adapted the spec according to your recommendations. You can view it here: SPEC: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/netronome/virtio-forwarder/fedora-27-x86_64/00775197-virtio-forwarder/virtio-forwarder.spec SRPM: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/netronome/virtio-forwarder/fedora-27-x86_64/00775197-virtio-forwarder/virtio-forwarder-1.1.99.19-1.fc27.src.rpm Koji rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=28091693 For now I have left the Source0 entry as-is. These packages map to upstream commits rather than tags, so I do not have a corresponding archive there. Do you know of alternatives that would work? I could add steps to generate it from the specific commit hash, but I'm not sure whether that would be acceptable. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/OKHWEELO2ZZERM6E2SDBIW5BLYTVGPDF/
[Bug 1581404] Package Review: python-rst-linker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1581404 Matthias Runge changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dra...@redhat.com Flags||needinfo?(dra...@redhat.com ||) --- Comment #5 from Matthias Runge --- Dan, would you have time to address the issues in my last comment? I think we're then ready to go with this. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/FDZGINXVEEBVYOGKBNEAMMQ6GZCN5T26/
[Bug 1594313] Review Request: java-11-openjdk - next LTS OpenJDK for Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313 --- Comment #43 from jiri vanek --- Done: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/java-openjdk/c/58db6624a43260e79c79b87f7fe19d73ab0954df?branch=java-11-openjdk -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/6GCZRT5R3Z4LYOYVHSAQB3ZUWT72WCLZ/
[Bug 1594313] Review Request: java-11-openjdk - next LTS OpenJDK for Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313 --- Comment #42 from Severin Gehwolf --- Please also add this to the License comment clarifying public_suffix_list.dat: diff --git a/java-11-openjdk.spec b/java-11-openjdk.spec index 5ca02ed..c50a311 100644 --- a/java-11-openjdk.spec +++ b/java-11-openjdk.spec @@ -861,6 +861,7 @@ Group: Development/Languages # - JPEG library (IJG), zlib & libpng (zlib), giflib (MIT), harfbuzz (ISC), # - freetype (FTL), jline (BSD) and LCMS (MIT) # - jquery (MIT), jdk.crypto.cryptoki PKCS 11 wrapper (RSA) +# - public_suffix_list.dat from publicsuffix.org (MPLv2.0) # The test code includes copies of NSS under the Mozilla Public License v2.0 # The PCSClite headers are under a BSD with advertising license # The elliptic curve cryptography (ECC) source code is licensed under the LGPLv2.1 or any later version -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/YD4BIKQSTR6T5XLU3GGMS5FE6EIF6QIH/
[Bug 1594313] Review Request: java-11-openjdk - next LTS OpenJDK for Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313 --- Comment #41 from jiri vanek --- > Scracth build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=28070907 > As it is based on +20 of shenandoah project > My local build on shenandoah-arch keep running in time of this posting Failed in PRM files part: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/java-openjdk/c/a8520e7d109cdd5bb99159ac9dac6248f9d018f2?branch=java-11-openjdk New one: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=28091196 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/SM6C4VDI3FUFNCPSPDAWRC3WAQ3DSYVL/
[Bug 1378417] Review Request: nodejs-grunt-postcss - Apply several post-processors to your CSS using PostCSS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378417 Matthias Runge changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed||2018-07-09 04:07:58 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/2ZTDZTBN4A5VUJHJHA5L5HORHJSVZNE4/
[Bug 1376719] Review Request: golang-github-go-macaron-binding - Provides request data binding and validation for Macaron
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376719 Matthias Runge changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed||2018-07-09 04:00:18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/W6G5DCOIUCFI7O7KCTET2O5U6VQM3AE7/
[Bug 1376659] Review Request: golang-github-franela-goreq - Minimal and simple request library for Go language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376659 Matthias Runge changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed||2018-07-09 04:00:26 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/HK5GA3OBSWSHFEHHIOHLVVYQVUMOHOSI/
