[Bug 1326504] Review Request: htslib - C library for high-throughput sequencing data formats (required for `samtools`)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1326504 Lumír Balhar changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1738176 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1738176 [Bug 1738176] samtools depends on Python 2 -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1751726] Review Request: php-williamdes-mariadb-mysql-kbs - An index of the MariaDB and MySQL Knowledge bases
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1751726 --- Comment #3 from Remi Collet --- Thanks! SCM requests https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/17069 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/17070 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/17071 -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1751692] Review Request: php-swaggest-json-schema - High definition PHP structures with JSON-schema based validation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1751692 --- Comment #3 from Remi Collet --- Thanks! SCM requests https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/17066 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/17067 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/17068 -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1751639] Review Request: php-phplang-scope-exit - Emulation of SCOPE_EXIT construct from C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1751639 --- Comment #3 from Remi Collet --- Thanks! SCM requests https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/17063 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/17064 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/17065 -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1751947] Review Request: php-phpdocumentor-type-resolver1 - A PSR-5 based resolver of Class names, Types and Structural Element Names
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1751947 --- Comment #2 from Remi Collet --- Thanks SCM requests https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/17060 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/17061 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/17062 -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1751946] Review Request: php-phpdocumentor-reflection-common2 - Common reflection classes used by phpdocumentor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1751946 --- Comment #2 from Remi Collet --- Thanks! SCM requests https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/17057 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/17058 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/17059 -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1751690] Review Request: php-swaggest-json-diff - JSON diff/rearrange/patch/pointer library for PHP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1751690 --- Comment #2 from Remi Collet --- Thanks! SCM requests https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/17054 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/17055 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/17056 -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1752226] Review Request: la-capitaine-cursor-theme - X-cursor theme inspired by macOS and based on KDE Breeze
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1752226
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- You need to add the scriptlets for icon cache when installing for others
than hicolor
%post
/bin/touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/%{tname} &>/dev/null || :
%postun
if [ $1 -eq 0 ] ; then
/bin/touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/%{tname} &>/dev/null
/usr/bin/gtk-update-icon-cache %{_datadir}/icons/%{tname} &>/dev/null || :
fi
%posttrans
/usr/bin/gtk-update-icon-cache %{_datadir}/icons/%{tname} &>/dev/null || :
- I don't think you need: Requires: hicolor-icon-theme as you don't
install icons inside hicolor
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= 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: "GNU Lesser General Public License (v3 or later)", "Unknown or
generated", "Creative Commons CC0 Public License". 351 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/la-capitaine-cursor-theme/review-la-
capitaine-cursor-theme/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/icons/La-
Capitaine(la-capitaine-icon-theme)
[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 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 requires other packages for directories it uses.
[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.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes
[Bug 1751726] Review Request: php-williamdes-mariadb-mysql-kbs - An index of the MariaDB and MySQL Knowledge bases
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1751726
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 =
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: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Mozilla Public License
(v2.0)". 116 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/php-williamdes-mariadb-
mysql-kbs/review-php-williamdes-mariadb-mysql-kbs/licensecheck.txt
[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 51200 bytes in 4 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 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.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %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]:
[Bug 1751692] Review Request: php-swaggest-json-schema - High definition PHP structures with JSON-schema based validation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1751692
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 =
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: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License", "*No copyright* Apache
License (v2.0)". 673 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/php-swaggest-json-
schema/review-php-swaggest-json-schema/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/php/Swaggest
[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]: 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]: 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.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %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,
[Bug 1751639] Review Request: php-phplang-scope-exit - Emulation of SCOPE_EXIT construct from C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1751639
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 =
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 "New" or "Revised" License", "Unknown or
generated", "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)". 3 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/php-phplang-scope-exit/review-php-phplang-
scope-exit/licensecheck.txt
[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 10240 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]: 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 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.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %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.
[Bug 1751947] Review Request: php-phpdocumentor-type-resolver1 - A PSR-5 based resolver of Class names, Types and Structural Element Names
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1751947
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 =
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: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License". 54 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/php-phpdocumentor-type-resolver1/review-
php-phpdocumentor-type-resolver1/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/php/phpDocumentor/Reflection2
[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 30720 bytes in 9 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]: 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.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %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,
[Bug 1751946] Review Request: php-phpdocumentor-reflection-common2 - Common reflection classes used by phpdocumentor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1751946
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 =
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: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License". 18 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/php-phpdocumentor-reflection-
common2/review-php-phpdocumentor-reflection-common2/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
/usr/share/php/phpDocumentor(php-phpdocumentor-graphviz, php-
phpdocumentor-reflection-docblock, php-phpdocumentor-reflection-
docblock2, php-phpdocumentor-reflection-common, php-phpdocumentor-
fileset)
[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 10240 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]: 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 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.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer
[Bug 1747552] Review Request: libdfp - Decimal Floating Point library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1747552
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Use %global, not %define:
%global cpu_variants power6
- Missing isa:
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
- It seems it should be:
%prep
%autosetup -p1 -n %{name}-%{version}
- make %{?_smp_mflags} → %make_build
- make install install_root=%{buildroot} → %make_install
- Not needed: %defattr(-,root,root,-)
- Use %ldconfig_scriptlets instead of:
%post -p /sbin/ldconfig
%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig
- In order to avoid unintentional soname bumps, we forbid the globbing of the
major soname version, be more specific instead:
%{_libdir}/*.so.*
- # Install COPYING.txt to _docdir.
Patch3: libdfp-license.patch
Why? COPYING.txt should not go to _docdir but be installed to licensedir with:
%license COPYING.txt
The file will be copied to the right location by rpm.
> Will epel8 use a newer gcc-8.3.* as soon as such a newer version is available
> in RHEL 8?
I have no idea how RHEL work, but EPEL8 will use it soon after it is available
in RHEL.
--
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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1751690] Review Request: php-swaggest-json-diff - JSON diff/rearrange/patch/pointer library for PHP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1751690
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 =
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: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License". 44 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/php-swaggest-json-diff/review-php-swaggest-
json-diff/licensecheck.txt
[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]: 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 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.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec
[Bug 1751660] Review Request: python-casttube - A library to support complex camera ISPs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1751660
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- %global with_tests 0
Use bcond_with/bcond_without
Also why tests are disabled? If there is no tests drop the entire %check
section.
- Use:
Source0:
https://github.com/ur1katz/casttube/archive/%{version}/%{pypi_name}-%{version}.tar.gz
- It is verbotten to glob the entire Python sitelib, be more precise instead:
%{python3_sitelib}/casttube
%{python3_sitelib}/casttube-%{version}-py*.egg-info
See
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_files_to_include
- Summary is coo long and should not repeat the app name:
Summary:Python library to interact with the Youtube Chromecast api
- Description is too long, split it to stbay under 80 characters per line:
python3-casttube.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C Casttube is a python
library which a way to interact with the Youtube Chromecast api.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
Note: Package contains %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
See: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/782
= 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: "Expat License", "Unknown or generated". 5 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/python-casttube/review-python-
casttube/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[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 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[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
[Bug 1751434] Review Request: R-AsioHeaders - Asio C++ Header Files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1751434
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
Issues:
===
- Package have the default element marked as %%doc :DESCRIPTION
- Package requires R-core.
= 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: "Unknown or generated", "Boost Software License (v1.0)", "Boost
Software License Boost Software License 1.0 GNU General Public
License". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/R-AsioHeaders/review-R-
AsioHeaders/licensecheck.txt
[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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
R:
[x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires.
[x]: The package has the standard %install section.
= 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.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should
[Bug 1326504] Review Request: htslib - C library for high-throughput sequencing data formats (required for `samtools`)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1326504
--- Comment #23 from Jun Aruga ---
Hi Dave,
I updated the spec file and SRPM file for below URLs.
> Spec URL:
> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/junaruga/htslib-pkg/hotfix/review/htslib.spec
> SRPM URL:
> https://github.com/junaruga/htslib-pkg/blob/hotfix/review/htslib-1.9-1.fc32.src.rpm?raw=true
> I confess I ignore those. I'm not at all sure it's sensible as a
general stipulation.
I just keep it in my mind at the moment. It's not an error from rpmlint, but
warning.
> Ah. That probably merits a bug report.
Sure. I sent email to le...@lists.fedoraproject.org to ask the question about
how to set Expat license. It looks Expat license is MIT license. Then someone
replied Expat was same with MIT.
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/le...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/C5AHVIW3F6LF5CYLR2PSHNANFYKP327P/
> It's simply wrong. .so.1.9 and .so.2 imply incompatible ABIs. ...
> so you probably don't want to follow it.
I simply did not understand it well. This is my first experience for RPM
packaging of "foolib".
I like to follow Fedora's rule as much as possible.
I defined `%global so_version 0.1` to use it like libhts.so.0.1
I also opened the ticket to ask it on upstream.
https://github.com/samtools/htslib/issues/932
> Also, the advice is to glob man pages in %files
done
> -fPIC is redundant in CFLAGS as it comes from the compiler specs.
done
> You should also set LDFLAGS to %build_ldflags or similar.
done
What I want to ask you is when I install the binary RPM
htslib-1.9-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm, `/usr/lib64/libhts.so.2` is installed. I do not
know why.
```
$ mock -i htslib-1.9-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm
sh-5.0# ls /usr/lib64/libhts*
/usr/lib64/libhts.so.0.1 /usr/lib64/libhts.so.2
sh-5.0# rpm -ql /usr/lib64/libhts.so.2
package /usr/lib64/libhts.so.2 is not installed
```
I ran `rm -f libhts.so.2` in %install section, also had to set `%exclude
%{_libdir}/libhts.so.2` in %files.
And I also below error from rpmlint might be related to this issue.
```
htslib.x86_64: E: no-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/libhts.so.0.1
The package should not only include the shared library itself, but also the
symbolic link which ldconfig would produce. (This is necessary, so that the
link gets removed by rpm automatically when the package gets removed, even if
for some reason ldconfig would not be run at package postinstall phase.)
```
Do you know why?
Here is the scratch build.
Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=37811950
Thank you for your patience.
I am learning a lot from this reviewing process.
--
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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1754039] Review Request: libselinux-python3 - SELinux python 3 bindings for libselinux
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1754039 --- Comment #4 from Carl George --- Of course if this is a blocker, I don't mind renaming it to python3-libselinux. It's just not my first choice. -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1747853] Review Request: golang-github-captncraig-caddy-realip - Real-IP middleware for caddy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1747853 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2019-ef43b7bb8f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-ef43b7bb8f -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1750179] Review Request: git-remote-gcrypt - GNU Privacy Guard-encrypted git remote
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1750179 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags|needinfo?(zebo...@gmail.com |fedora-review+ |) | --- Comment #6 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - Group is not used in Fedora. Package approved. -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1750091] Review Request: R-systemfonts - System Native Font Finding
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1750091 --- Comment #5 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/R-systemfonts -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1754318] Review Request: gap-pkg-sla - Computing with simple Lie algebras
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1754318 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1754317 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1754317 [Bug 1754317] Review Request: gap-pkg-quagroup - Computations with quantum groups -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1754319] Review Request: gap-pkg-corelg - Computation with real Lie groups
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1754319 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1754318 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1754318 [Bug 1754318] Review Request: gap-pkg-sla - Computing with simple Lie algebras -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1754318] Review Request: gap-pkg-sla - Computing with simple Lie algebras
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1754318 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1754319 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1754319 [Bug 1754319] Review Request: gap-pkg-corelg - Computation with real Lie groups -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1754317] Review Request: gap-pkg-quagroup - Computations with quantum groups
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1754317 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1754318 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1754318 [Bug 1754318] Review Request: gap-pkg-sla - Computing with simple Lie algebras -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1754311] Review Request: gap-pkg-liering - Computing with finitely presented Lie rings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1754311 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1754312 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1754312 [Bug 1754312] Review Request: gap-pkg-liepring - Database and algorithms for Lie p-rings -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1754312] Review Request: gap-pkg-liepring - Database and algorithms for Lie p-rings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1754312 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1754311 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1754311 [Bug 1754311] Review Request: gap-pkg-liering - Computing with finitely presented Lie rings -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1726466] Review Request: fast-cdr - Fast Common Data Representation (CDR) Serialization Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1726466 Rich Mattes changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2019-09-22 18:24:23 -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1754317] New: Review Request: gap-pkg-quagroup - Computations with quantum groups
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1754317 Bug ID: 1754317 Summary: Review Request: gap-pkg-quagroup - Computations with quantum groups Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: loganje...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-quagroup/gap-pkg-quagroup.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-quagroup/gap-pkg-quagroup-1.8.1-1.fc32.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jjames Description: QuaGroup provides functionality for computing in quantized enveloping algebras of finite-dimensional semisimple Lie algebras. -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1754313] New: Review Request: gap-pkg-loops - Computing with quasigroups and loops
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1754313 Bug ID: 1754313 Summary: Review Request: gap-pkg-loops - Computing with quasigroups and loops Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: loganje...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-loops/gap-pkg-loops.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-loops/gap-pkg-loops-3.4.1-1.fc32.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jjames Description: The LOOPS package provides researchers in nonassociative algebra with a computational tool that integrates standard notions of loop theory with libraries of loops and group-theoretical algorithms of GAP. The package also expands GAP toward nonassociative structures. -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1754318] New: Review Request: gap-pkg-sla - Computing with simple Lie algebras
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1754318 Bug ID: 1754318 Summary: Review Request: gap-pkg-sla - Computing with simple Lie algebras Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: loganje...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-sla/gap-pkg-sla.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-sla/gap-pkg-sla-1.5.2-1.fc32.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jjames Description: This package contains diverse functions for working with simple Lie algebras in GAP (base fields are of characteristic 0). -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1754311] New: Review Request: gap-pkg-liering - Computing with finitely presented Lie rings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1754311 Bug ID: 1754311 Summary: Review Request: gap-pkg-liering - Computing with finitely presented Lie rings Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: loganje...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-liering/gap-pkg-liering.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-liering/gap-pkg-liering-2.4.1-1.fc32.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jjames Description: This package provides functions for constructing and working with Lie rings. There are functions for dealing with finitely-presented Lie rings, and for performing the Lazard correspondence. The package also contains a small database of finitely-generated Lie rings satisfying an Engel condition. -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1754315] New: Review Request: gap-pkg-mapclass - Calculate mapping class group orbits for a finite group
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1754315 Bug ID: 1754315 Summary: Review Request: gap-pkg-mapclass - Calculate mapping class group orbits for a finite group Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: loganje...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-mapclass/gap-pkg-mapclass.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-mapclass/gap-pkg-mapclass-1.4.4-1.fc32.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jjames Description: The MapClass package calculates the mapping class group orbits for a given finite group. -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1754316] New: Review Request: gap-pkg-repsn - Representations of finite groups
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1754316 Bug ID: 1754316 Summary: Review Request: gap-pkg-repsn - Representations of finite groups Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: loganje...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-repsn/gap-pkg-repsn.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-repsn/gap-pkg-repsn-3.1.0-1.fc32.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jjames Description: This package is for computing matrix representations in characteristic zero of finite groups. -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1754310] New: Review Request: gap-pkg-liealgdb - Database of Lie algebras
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1754310 Bug ID: 1754310 Summary: Review Request: gap-pkg-liealgdb - Database of Lie algebras Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: loganje...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-liealgdb/gap-pkg-liealgdb.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-liealgdb/gap-pkg-liealgdb-2.2-1.fc32.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jjames Description: The package LieAlgDB provides access to several classifications of Lie algebras. In the mathematics literature many classifications of Lie algebras of various types have been published (refer to the bibliography of the manual for a few examples). However, working with these classifications from paper is not always easy. This package aims at making a few classifications of small dimensional Lie algebras that have appeared in recent years more accessible. For each classification that is contained in the package, functions are provided that construct Lie algebras from that classification inside GAP. This allows the user to obtain easy access to the often rather complicated data contained in a classification, and to directly interface the Lie algebras to the functionality for Lie algebras which is already contained in GAP. -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1754319] New: Review Request: gap-pkg-corelg - Computation with real Lie groups
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1754319 Bug ID: 1754319 Summary: Review Request: gap-pkg-corelg - Computation with real Lie groups Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: loganje...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-corelg/gap-pkg-corelg.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-corelg/gap-pkg-corelg-1.51-1.fc32.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jjames Description: The main object of the CoReLG package is to provide functionality for computing with real (semi-)simple Lie algebras. -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1754312] New: Review Request: gap-pkg-liepring - Database and algorithms for Lie p-rings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1754312 Bug ID: 1754312 Summary: Review Request: gap-pkg-liepring - Database and algorithms for Lie p-rings Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: loganje...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-liepring/gap-pkg-liepring.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-liepring/gap-pkg-liepring-1.9.2-1.fc32.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jjames Description: The main object of the LiePRing package is to provide access to the nilpotent Lie rings of order p^n for p>2 and n<=7. -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1754309] New: Review Request: gap-pkg-datastructures - Standard data structures for GAP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1754309 Bug ID: 1754309 Summary: Review Request: gap-pkg-datastructures - Standard data structures for GAP Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: loganje...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-datastructures/gap-pkg-datastructures.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-datastructures/gap-pkg-datastructures-0.2.4-1.fc32.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jjames Description: The datastructures package aims at providing standard datastructures, consolidating existing code and improving on it, in particular in view of HPC-GAP. The following data structures are provided: - queues - doubly linked lists - heaps - priority queues - hashtables - dictionaries -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1754308] New: Review Request: gap-pkg-curlinterface - Simple web access for GAP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1754308 Bug ID: 1754308 Summary: Review Request: gap-pkg-curlinterface - Simple web access for GAP Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: loganje...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-curlinterface/gap-pkg-curlinterface.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-curlinterface/gap-pkg-curlinterface-2.1.1-1.fc32.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jjames Description: This package provides a simple GAP wrapper around libcurl, to allow downloading files over http, ftp and https. -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1750159] Review Request: ibm-plex-fonts - IBM's Plex fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1750159 --- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ibm-plex-fonts -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1750069] Review Request: xeus - C++ implementation of the Jupyter kernel protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1750069 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/xeus -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1744388] Review Request: golang-gocloud - Library and tools for open cloud development in Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1744388 --- Comment #9 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/golang-gocloud -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1094013] Review Request: vim-ledger - Vim plugin for use with Ledger, the double-entry accounting system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1094013 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Blocks||201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Last Closed||2019-09-22 17:08:34 --- Comment #6 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) --- No response---closing this. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449 [Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter response should be blocking this bug. -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1754302] Review Request: golang-github-google-cmdtest - Simplify testing of command-line interfaces
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1754302 --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=37805853 -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1754302] Review Request: golang-github-google-cmdtest - Simplify testing of command-line interfaces
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1754302 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1744388 (golang-gocloud) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1744388 [Bug 1744388] Review Request: golang-gocloud - Library and tools for open cloud development in Go -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1744388] Review Request: golang-gocloud - Library and tools for open cloud development in Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1744388 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1754302 ||(golang-github-google-cmdte ||st) --- Comment #8 from Robert-André Mauchin --- 0.17.0 added a new dependency, golang-github-google-cmdtest, could you take a look if you have the time? Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1754302 [Bug 1754302] Review Request: golang-github-google-cmdtest - Simplify testing of command-line interfaces -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1754302] New: Review Request: golang-github-google-cmdtest - Simplify testing of command-line interfaces
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1754302 Bug ID: 1754302 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-google-cmdtest - Simplify testing of command-line interfaces Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: zebo...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/golang-github-google-cmdtest.spec SRPM URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/golang-github-google-cmdtest-0.1.0-1.fc32.src.rpm Description: The cmdtest package simplifies testing of command-line interfaces. It provides a simple, cross-platform, shell-like language to express command execution. It can compare actual output with the expected output, and can also update a file with new "golden" output that is deemed correct. Fedora Account System Username: eclipseo -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1750567] Review Request: gnome-hexgl - Gthree port of HexGL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1750567 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Package approved. -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1719956] Review Request: python-argon2-cffi - The secure Argon2 password hashing algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1719956 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Refreshing flag. -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1719956] Review Request: python-argon2-cffi - The secure Argon2 password hashing algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1719956 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Flags|fedora-review+ |fedora-review? Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1719957] Review Request: python-pycryptodome - self-contained Python package of low-level cryptographic primitives
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1719957 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Flags|fedora-review+ |fedora-review? Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1719957] Review Request: python-pycryptodome - self-contained Python package of low-level cryptographic primitives
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1719957 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Refreshing flag. -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1719959] Review Request: python-pykeepass - library to interact with keepass databases
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1719959 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Refreshing flag. -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1719959] Review Request: python-pykeepass - library to interact with keepass databases
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1719959 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Flags|fedora-review+ |fedora-review? Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1718339] Review Request: gnome-passwordsafe - password manager which makes use of the KeePass v.4 format and integrates perfectly with the GNOME desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1718339 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #10 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Refreshing flag. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1718339] Review Request: gnome-passwordsafe - password manager which makes use of the KeePass v.4 format and integrates perfectly with the GNOME desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1718339 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review+ |fedora-review? -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1750580] Review Request: python-pykeepass - Python library to interact with keepass databases
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1750580 --- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin --- (In reply to Artem from comment #2) > > I've already reviewed this and approved it: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1719959 > > Yep, i apologize, this a second time when i noticed this only after i > already did my own build. :( I wanted this Password Safe in repos for a long > time and when i am first time tried to package it was required many python > packages and i postponed it. > > I am always happy for co-maintanership so if original poster wish i am up, > or vise versa. You would need to contact him for that, he hasn't shown interest in doing sample reviews to be sponsored though. See also his bug report for passwordsafe: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1718339 I'll see if I can sponsor him. -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1750045] Review Request: abhaya-libre-fonts - Libre version of FM Abhaya font
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1750045
--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
(In reply to Danishka Navin from comment #2)
> Robert, Thanks for taking this package to review.
>
> (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1)
> > - Not a valid license shourthand, it should be "OFL":
> >
> > License:SIL Open Font License
> >
>
>
> Ok, I will make it as OFL
>
> > - Use a better name for your archive:
> >
> > Source0:%{url}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
> >
> > - What is this:
> >
> > %undefine _disable_source_fetch
>
> without this rpmbuild looking for the source file in my local.
>
That's normal and expected. Besides it won't work within Mock/Koji.
You can use spectool -g to download the sources:
spectool -g *.spec
And mockbuild to test your package in a chroot:
fedpkg --release f32 mockbuild --mock-config fedora-rawhide-x86_64
(In reply to Danishka Navin from comment #3)
> Btw, I have originally used fontname as abhaya-libre-font as the upstream
> also use the same name.
>
> But when I build the package there was an error
>
> >error: line 57: %files -n abhaya-libre-fonts
> >: package abhaya-libre-fonts does not exist
>
>
> So, I renamed it as abhaya-libre-fonts
> In order to use a source from upstream, I used the following URL.
> Source0:
> https://github.com/mooniak/abhaya-libre-font/archive/v1.060.tar.gz
Then the correct way to extract the archive should be:
%autosetup -n abhaya-libre-font-%{version}
Please post updated SPEC/SRPM
--
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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1754144] Review Request: python-cma - Co-variance Matrix Adaptation Evolution Strategy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1754144
--- Comment #2 from Christoph Junghans ---
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #1)
> > %global sum Co-variance Matrix Adaptation Evolution Strategy
>
> You can just set:
>
> Summary: Co-variance Matrix Adaptation Evolution Strategy
>
> and later use:
>
> Summary: %{summary}
Cool, didn't know that would work, changed.
> > BuildRequires: python3-devel
>
> The package uses setuptools (see setup.py), please also BR
> python3-setuptools.
Added.
> > Requires: python3-numpy
>
> Does the automatic dependency generator not work?
Didn't know there was an automatic dep generator, so dropped
> > chmod +x
> > %{buildroot}%{python3_sitelib}/cma/{bbobbenchmarks.py,purecma.py,test.py}
>
> Why do those files need to be executables? Why do they have shebangs?
Good point, I looked that there scripts again and all of them can be used with
e.g. "python -m cma.test", so dropping the shebang should be fine.
> > %{python3_sitelib}/%{srcname}
> > %{python3_sitelib}/%{srcname}-%{version}-*.egg-info
>
> It's more explicit if you put a leading slash, such as:
>
> %{python3_sitelib}/%{srcname}/
> %{python3_sitelib}/%{srcname}-%{version}-*.egg-info/
Changed.
Spec URL: https://junghans.fedorapeople.org/python-cma.spec
SRPM URL: https://junghans.fedorapeople.org/python-cma-2.7.0-2.fc30.src.rpm
--
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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1754144] Review Request: python-cma - Co-variance Matrix Adaptation Evolution Strategy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1754144
Miro Hrončok changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mhron...@redhat.com
--- Comment #1 from Miro Hrončok ---
> %global sum Co-variance Matrix Adaptation Evolution Strategy
You can just set:
Summary: Co-variance Matrix Adaptation Evolution Strategy
and later use:
Summary: %{summary}
---
> BuildRequires: python3-devel
The package uses setuptools (see setup.py), please also BR python3-setuptools.
---
> Requires: python3-numpy
Does the automatic dependency generator not work?
---
> chmod +x
> %{buildroot}%{python3_sitelib}/cma/{bbobbenchmarks.py,purecma.py,test.py}
Why do those files need to be executables? Why do they have shebangs?
---
> %{python3_sitelib}/%{srcname}
> %{python3_sitelib}/%{srcname}-%{version}-*.egg-info
It's more explicit if you put a leading slash, such as:
%{python3_sitelib}/%{srcname}/
%{python3_sitelib}/%{srcname}-%{version}-*.egg-info/
--
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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1750179] Review Request: git-remote-gcrypt - GNU Privacy Guard-encrypted git remote
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1750179 Dusty Mabe changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(zebo...@gmail.com ||) --- Comment #5 from Dusty Mabe --- Any other fixes I need to make? -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1746587] Review Request: amavis - Email filter with virus scanner and spamassassin support
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1746587 --- Comment #2 from Hirotaka Wakabayashi --- Hello Juan, Please check the following error and warning messages by rpmlint on amavis-2.12.0-3.fc31.noarch.rpm. 1. E: dir-or-file-in-var-run A file in the package is located in /var/run. /var/run is a legacy symlink to /run in Fedora. Please see: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_run 2. E: non-standard-dir-perm I found non-standard-dir-perm errors are ignored in the amavis-new package review[1] because they are safe to be ignored. Please fix the non-standard-dir-perm errors if you could. Please see: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_file_permissions 3. warnings I found warnings are ignored in the amavis-new package review[1] because they are safe to be ignored. Please fix the warnings if you could. [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=167354 Appendix: output of rpmlint ``` $ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/amavis-2.12.0-3.fc31.noarch.rpm amavis.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) spamassassin -> spam assassin, spam-assassin, assassin amavis.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US SpamAssassin -> Spam Assassin, Spam-assassin, Assassin amavis.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided amavisd-new-snmp-zeromq amavis.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided amavisd-new-zeromq amavis.noarch: W: no-documentation amavis.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/run/amavisd amavis amavis.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /var/run/amavisd amavis amavis.noarch: E: dir-or-file-in-var-run /var/run/amavisd amavis.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/run/clamd.amavisd amavis amavis.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /var/run/clamd.amavisd clamupdate amavis.noarch: E: dir-or-file-in-var-run /var/run/clamd.amavisd amavis.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/run/clamd.amavisd 770 amavis.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/spool/amavisd amavis amavis.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /var/spool/amavisd amavis amavis.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/amavisd 750 amavis.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/spool/amavisd/db amavis amavis.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /var/spool/amavisd/db amavis amavis.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/amavisd/db 750 amavis.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/spool/amavisd/quarantine amavis amavis.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /var/spool/amavisd/quarantine amavis amavis.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/amavisd/quarantine 750 amavis.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/spool/amavisd/tmp amavis amavis.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /var/spool/amavisd/tmp amavis amavis.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/amavisd/tmp 750 amavis.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary amavisd-agent amavis.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary amavisd-nanny amavis.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary amavisd-release amavis.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary amavisd-signer amavis.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary amavisd-submit amavis.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary amavisd 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 7 errors, 23 warnings. $ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/SRPMS/amavis-2.12.0-3.fc31.src.rpm amavis.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) spamassassin -> spam assassin, spam-assassin, assassin amavis.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US SpamAssassin -> Spam Assassin, Spam-assassin, Assassin 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. $ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/amavis-snmp-2.12.0-3.fc31.noarch.rpm amavis-snmp.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US amavisd -> atavism amavis-snmp.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subagent -> sub agent, sub-agent, subbasement amavis-snmp.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US stdout -> stout, std out, std-out amavis-snmp.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mrtg -> mtg amavis-snmp.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary amavisd-snmp-subagent 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. $ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/amavis-doc-2.12.0-3.fc31.noarch.rpm amavis-doc.noarch: W: install-file-in-docs /usr/share/doc/amavis-doc/INSTALL 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. ``` Thanks in advance, Hirotaka Wakabayashi -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1416705] Review Request: python-kivy - Kivy - Multimedia / Multitouch framework in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1416705 Bug 1416705 depends on bug 1667951, which changed state. Bug 1667951 Summary: google-roboto-mono-fonts is needed in rawhide (f30) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1667951 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
