[Bug 1808506] Review Request: python-mulpyplexer - Module that multiplexes interactions with lists of Python objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808506 --- Comment #3 from Igor Gnatenko --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-mulpyplexer -- 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 1808606] Review Request: python-itanium_demangler - Pure Python parser for mangled itanium symbols
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808606 --- Comment #3 from Igor Gnatenko --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-itanium_demangler -- 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 1773467] Review Request: avocado-vt - A avocado plugin for virtualization related tests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1773467 --- Comment #24 from lnie --- Hi Robert, Thanks a lot for your review,and here are the new links: SRPM:https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lnie/avocado-vt/fedora-31-x86_64/01315215-avocado-vt/avocado-vt-77.0-1.fc31.src.rpm SPEC:https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lnie/avocado-vt/fedora-31-x86_64/01315215-avocado-vt/avocado-vt.spec -- 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 1809918] Review Request: afdko - Adobe Font Development Kit for OpenType
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1809918 --- Comment #4 from vishalvvr --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/vishalvvr/afdko/fedora-31-x86_64/01315202-adobe-afdko/adobe-afdko.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/vishalvvr/afdko/fedora-31-x86_64/01315202-adobe-afdko/adobe-afdko-3.0.1-4.fc31.src.rpm Note: Thanks Nicolas for suggesting this update, Yes i do feel renaming package to adobe-afdko makes sense. Updated the package as per the suggestions mentioned above. -- 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 1806241] Review Request: php-webimpress-safe-writer - Tool to write files safely, to avoid race conditions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1806241 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-03-23 02:37:43 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- php-webimpress-safe-writer-2.0.0-1.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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 1814682] Review Request: rshim - rshim driver for Mellanox BlueField SoC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1814682 --- Comment #8 from Honggang LI --- (In reply to lsun from comment #4) > Thanks Honggang for the comments. I am working on it and will post new > version after fixing these warnings. Please fix those issue for this fedora package review. When we import this package for RHEL-8, we will have to fix those issue. Because it is a mandatory task for RHEL package import. Fix those issues earlier will save time for us in the future. Thanks -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1814682] Review Request: rshim - rshim driver for Mellanox BlueField SoC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1814682
--- Comment #7 from Honggang LI ---
1814682-rshim]$ rpm -qpl results/rshim-2.0-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm | grep man
/usr/share/man/man1/bfrshim.1.gz
^
1814682-rshim]$ rpm -qpl results/rshim-2.0-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm | grep bin
/usr/bin/bfrshim
./src/rshim.c:2092: rc = system("modprobe cuse");
./src/rshim_net.c:56: rc = system("modprobe tun");
The binary 'bfrshim' may execute 'modprobe' command, which requires
administrator permission.
I suggest to move 'bfrshim' into the '/usr/sbin' directory, and install the
manpage into man-8 section instead of man-1.
--
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 1801423] Review Request: ocaml-zmq - ZeroMQ bindings for OCaml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1801423 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- ocaml-zmq-5.1.3-1.fc32 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-0a941541db -- 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 1813713] Review Request: gap-pkg-qpa - GAP package for quivers and path algebras
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1813713 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- gap-pkg-qpa-1.30-2.fc32 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-4ab9afe549 -- 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 1786920] Review Request: python-pytest-django - A Django plugin for pytest
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1786920 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|ON_QA --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- python-pytest-django-3.8.0-3.fc32 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-9750149e79 -- 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 1810820] Review Request: quaternion - A Qt5-based IM client for Matrix
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1810820 --- Comment #3 from Brendan Early --- Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mymindstorm/quaternion-spec/master/quaternion/quaternion.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mymindstorm/quaternion/fedora-32-x86_64/01315147-quaternion/quaternion-0.0.9.4c-1.fc32.src.rpm Fixed issues -- 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 1810819] Review Request: libqmatrixclient - Qt5 library to write cross-platform clients for Matrix
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1810819 --- Comment #2 from Brendan Early --- Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mymindstorm/quaternion-spec/master/libqmatrixclient/libqmatrixclient.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mymindstorm/quaternion/fedora-32-i386/01315148-libqmatrixclient/libqmatrixclient-0.5.2-1.fc32.src.rpm Fixed -- 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 1797362] Review Request: chordpro - Typesetting ChordPro songbooks (lyrics + chords)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1797362
--- Comment #6 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- According to the README, the license is Artistic License 2.0;
License: Artistic 2.0
Still ask upstream for a separate LICENSE file.
- Several tests fail:
+ make test
PERL_DL_NONLAZY=1 "/usr/bin/perl" "-MExtUtils::Command::MM" "-MTest::Harness"
"-e" "undef *Test::Harness::Switches; test_harness(0, 'blib/lib', 'blib/arch')"
t/*.t
# Using PDF::API2 for PDF generation
t/01_prereq.t . ok
# Testing App::Music::ChordPro 0.974.1, Perl 5.030002, /usr/bin/perl
t/02_load.t ... ok
t/100_basic.t . ok
t/101_empty.t . ok
t/102_new_song.t .. ok
t/103_title.t . ok
t/104_subtitles.t . ok
# Failed test 'got config'
# at t/105_chords.t line 50.
# Looks like you failed 1 test of 321.
t/105_chords.t
Dubious, test returned 1 (wstat 256, 0x100)
Failed 1/321 subtests
# Failed test 'got config'
# at t/107_chords_latin.t line 102.
# Looks like you failed 1 test of 321.
t/107_chords_latin.t ..
Dubious, test returned 1 (wstat 256, 0x100)
Failed 1/321 subtests
# Failed test 'got config'
# at t/108_chords_solfege.t line 102.
# Looks like you failed 1 test of 321.
t/108_chords_solfege.t
Dubious, test returned 1 (wstat 256, 0x100)
Failed 1/321 subtests
t/109_chords_nashville.t .. ok
t/110_chords_roman.t .. ok
t/112_comment.t ... ok
t/113_comment.t ... ok
t/114_songline.t .. ok
t/115_songline.t .. ok
t/116_chorus.t ok
t/117_rechorus.t .. ok
t/118_tab.t ... ok
t/119_verse.t . ok
t/120_meta.t .. ok
t/122_memorize.t .. ok
t/130_image.t . ok
t/131_image.t . ok
t/140_chords.t ok
t/141_chords.t ok
t/142_chords.t ok
t/150_fonts.t . ok
t/151_fonts.t . ok
t/15_subst.t .. ok
t/160_diagrams.t .. ok
t/161_titles.t ok
t/162_newpage.t ... ok
t/163_columns.t ... ok
t/164_pagesize.t .. ok
t/169_custom.t ok
t/170_transpose.t . ok
t/171_transpose.t . ok
t/172_transpose.t . ok
t/173_transpose.t . ok
Can't locate Hash/Util.pm in @INC (you may need to install the Hash::Util
module) (@INC contains:
/builddir/build/BUILD/App-Music-ChordPro-0.974.1/blib/lib
/builddir/build/BUILD/App-Music-ChordPro-0.974.1/blib/arch
/usr/local/lib64/perl5/5.30 /usr/local/share/perl5/5.30
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl /usr/lib64/perl5
/usr/share/perl5 .) at
/builddir/build/BUILD/App-Music-ChordPro-0.974.1/blib/lib/App/Music/ChordPro/Config.pm
line 604.
Compilation failed in require at t/174_transpose.t line 12.
t/174_transpose.t .
Dubious, test returned 2 (wstat 512, 0x200)
No subtests run
t/175_transpose.t . ok
# Failed test 'got config'
# at t/177_transcode.t line 25.
Use of uninitialized value $t in substitution (s///) at
/builddir/build/BUILD/App-Music-ChordPro-0.974.1/blib/lib/App/Music/ChordPro/Songbook.pm
line 1090.
Use of uninitialized value $t in substitution (s///) at
/builddir/build/BUILD/App-Music-ChordPro-0.974.1/blib/lib/App/Music/ChordPro/Songbook.pm
line 1091.
Use of uninitialized value $t in substitution (s///) at
/builddir/build/BUILD/App-Music-ChordPro-0.974.1/blib/lib/App/Music/ChordPro/Songbook.pm
line 1092.
Use of uninitialized value $t in substitution (s///) at
/builddir/build/BUILD/App-Music-ChordPro-0.974.1/blib/lib/App/Music/ChordPro/Songbook.pm
line 1093.
Use of uninitialized value $t in substitution (s///) at
/builddir/build/BUILD/App-Music-ChordPro-0.974.1/blib/lib/App/Music/ChordPro/Songbook.pm
line 1094.
Use of uninitialized value $t in substitution (s///) at
/builddir/build/BUILD/App-Music-ChordPro-0.974.1/blib/lib/App/Music/ChordPro/Songbook.pm
line 1095.
Use of uninitialized value in concatenation (.) or string at
/builddir/build/BUILD/App-Music-ChordPro-0.974.1/blib/lib/App/Music/ChordPro/Songbook.pm
line 1100.
Use of uninitialized value $diagrams in pattern match (m//) at
/builddir/build/BUILD/App-Music-ChordPro-0.974.1/blib/lib/App/Music/ChordPro/Songbook.pm
line 234.
Use of uninitialized value $diagrams in pattern match (m//) at
/builddir/build/BUILD/App-Music-ChordPro-0.974.1/blib/lib/App/Music/ChordPro/Songbook.pm
line 242.
# Failed test 'Song contents'
# at t/177_transcode.t line 80.
# Structures begin differing at:
# $got->{chords} = Does not exist
# $expected->{chords} = HASH(0x55ea19dc1610)
# Looks like you failed 2 tests of 4.
t/177_transcode.t .
Dubious, test returned 2 (wstat 512, 0x200)
Failed 2/4 subtests
t/180_grids.t . ok
Can't locate Hash/Util.pm in @INC (you may need to install the Hash::Util
module) (@INC contains:
/builddir/build/BUILD/App-Music-ChordPro-0.974.1/blib/lib
/builddir/build/BUILD/App-Music-ChordPro-0.974.1/blib/arch
[Bug 1704522] Review Request: zork - Public Domain source code to the original DUNGEON game (Zork I)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1704522 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(dominik@greysecto |fedora-review? |r.net) | -- 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 1704522] Review Request: zork - Public Domain source code to the original DUNGEON game (Zork I)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1704522 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #9 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski --- Approved again. -- 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 1810820] Review Request: quaternion - A Qt5-based IM client for Matrix
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1810820
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Use a better name for your archive:
Source0:
https://github.com/quotient-im/Quaternion/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
- Own these directories:
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of
/usr/share/QMatrixClient/quaternion/translations,
/usr/share/QMatrixClient/quaternion, /usr/share/QMatrixClient
- Add RR hicolor-icon-theme for the icons
- changelog entries should not contain the Fedora release:
* Thu Mar 05 2020 Brendan Early - 0.0.9.4c-1
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "GPL (v3 or later)", "GNU Lesser
General Public License (v2.1 or later)", "GNU Lesser General Public
License (v3 or later)". 52 files have unknown license. Detailed output
of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/quaternion/review-
quaternion/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of
/usr/share/QMatrixClient/quaternion/translations,
/usr/share/QMatrixClient/quaternion, /usr/share/QMatrixClient
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[-]: 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 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[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
[Bug 1810819] Review Request: libqmatrixclient - Qt5 library to write cross-platform clients for Matrix
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1810819
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Use a better name for your archive:
Source0:
https://github.com/quotient-im/libQuotient/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
- Valid shorthand for LGPL 2.1 is LGPLv2
License: LGPLv2
- The tests are not working:
~/build/BUILD/libQuotient-0.5.2/x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu
~/build/BUILD/libQuotient-0.5.2
+ pushd x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu
+ ctest --output-on-failure
Test project /builddir/build/BUILD/libQuotient-0.5.2/x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu
No tests were found!!!
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
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* Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License", "GNU Lesser General Public
License (v2.1 or later)". 164 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/libqmatrixclient/review-
libqmatrixclient/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 51200 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
[Bug 1773467] Review Request: avocado-vt - A avocado plugin for virtualization related tests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1773467
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #23 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Please split your BR and RR one per line
- Don't use macros starting with __, they are for rpm private use:
%install
mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/avocado/conf.d
%py3_install
mv %{buildroot}%{python3_sitelib}/avocado_vt/conf.d/*
%{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/avocado/conf.d
- The changelog entry must match the version-release in the header. I suggest
you cut down the changelog prior to Fedora import. And add your entry with your
name and email.
--
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 1810027] Review Request: rust-escargot - Cargo API written in Paris
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1810027 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 --- - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines 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 1810026] Review Request: rust-assert_fs - Filesystem fixtures and assertions for testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1810026 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines 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 1815936] Review Request: reSIProcate - SIP and TURN stacks, with SIP proxy and TURN server implementations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815936 --- Comment #2 from Daniel Pocock --- This release is tagged as a beta pending any feedback from the Fedora review. When it is accepted in Fedora I'll tag 1.12.0 upstream. If any changes are required upstream, I'll commit them before the final 1.12.0 tag. -- 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 1809996] Review Request: rust-predicates - Implementation of boolean-valued predicate functions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1809996 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - Bump to 1.0.4 - License ok - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines 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 1815936] Review Request: reSIProcate - SIP and TURN stacks, with SIP proxy and TURN server implementations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815936 Daniel Pocock changed: What|Removed |Added Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value --- Comment #1 from Daniel Pocock --- This depends on asio 1.12.2 or greater. I built asio 1.14.0 in rawhide https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-1a78b8bb5d -- 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 1809994] Review Request: python-plugnplay - A generic plug-in system for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1809994
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
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.
[-]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-
plugnplay/review-python-plugnplay/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 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: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is
[Bug 1815937] Review Request: httprobe - Probing tool for working HTTP and HTTPS servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815937 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||563471 (FE-SECLAB) Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=563471 [Bug 563471] Tracker: Review Requests for Fedora Security Lab related packages -- 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 1815937] New: Review Request: httprobe - Probing tool for working HTTP and HTTPS servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815937 Bug ID: 1815937 Summary: Review Request: httprobe - Probing tool for working HTTP and HTTPS servers Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: m...@fabian-affolter.ch QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/httprobe.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/httprobe-0.1.2-1.fc31.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/tomnomnom/httprobe Description: Take a list of domains and probe for working HTTP and HTTPS servers. Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=42704779 rpmlint output: $ rpmlint httprobe-0.1.2-1.fc31.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint httprob* httprobe.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary httprobe 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Fedora Account System Username: fab -- 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 1809927] Review Request: python-aiostream - Generator-based operators for asynchronous iteration
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1809927
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- You must install the LICENSE with %license in %files
%license LICENSE
- Missing packages for the tests:
Executing(%check): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.qsWK1s
+ umask 022
+ cd /builddir/build/BUILD
+ cd aiostream-0.4.1
+ /usr/bin/python3 setup.py test
WARNING: The pip package is not available, falling back to EasyInstall for
handling setup_requires/test_requires; this is deprecated and will be removed
in a future version.
Download error on https://pypi.org/simple/pytest-runner/: [Errno -2] Name or
service not known -- Some packages may not be found!
Couldn't find index page for 'pytest-runner' (maybe misspelled?)
Download error on https://pypi.org/simple/: [Errno -2] Name or service not
known -- Some packages may not be found!
No local packages or working download links found for pytest-runner
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/setuptools/installer.py", line 62, in
fetch_build_egg
pkg_resources.get_distribution('pip')
File "/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/pkg_resources/__init__.py", line 482,
in get_distribution
dist = get_provider(dist)
File "/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/pkg_resources/__init__.py", line 358,
in get_provider
return working_set.find(moduleOrReq) or require(str(moduleOrReq))[0]
File "/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/pkg_resources/__init__.py", line 901,
in require
needed = self.resolve(parse_requirements(requirements))
File "/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/pkg_resources/__init__.py", line 787,
in resolve
raise DistributionNotFound(req, requirers)
pkg_resources.DistributionNotFound: The 'pip' distribution was not found and is
required by the application
During handling of the above exception, another exception occurred:
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "setup.py", line 14, in
setup(
File "/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/setuptools/__init__.py", line 143, in
setup
_install_setup_requires(attrs)
File "/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/setuptools/__init__.py", line 138, in
_install_setup_requires
dist.fetch_build_eggs(dist.setup_requires)
File "/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/setuptools/dist.py", line 684, in
fetch_build_eggs
resolved_dists = pkg_resources.working_set.resolve(
File "/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/pkg_resources/__init__.py", line 781,
in resolve
dist = best[req.key] = env.best_match(
File "/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/pkg_resources/__init__.py", line 1066,
in best_match
return self.obtain(req, installer)
File "/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/pkg_resources/__init__.py", line 1078,
in obtain
return installer(requirement)
File "/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/setuptools/dist.py", line 743, in
fetch_build_egg
return fetch_build_egg(self, req)
File "/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/setuptools/installer.py", line 70, in
fetch_build_egg
return _legacy_fetch_build_egg(dist, req)
File "/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/setuptools/installer.py", line 53, in
_legacy_fetch_build_egg
return cmd.easy_install(req)
File "/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/setuptools/command/easy_install.py",
line 686, in easy_install
raise DistutilsError(msg)
distutils.errors.DistutilsError: Could not find suitable distribution for
Requirement.parse('pytest-runner')
BuildRequires: python3-pytest-runner
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.
[!]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated". 45 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-
aiostream/review-python-aiostream/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
[Bug 1809910] Review Request: python-registry - Read access to Windows Registry files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1809910
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Can't install the resulting package
DEBUG util.py:600: Problem: conflicting requests
DEBUG util.py:600:- nothing provides python3.8dist(enum-compat) needed by
python3-registry-1.3.1-1.fc33.noarch
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: 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]: 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* Apache License 2.0 GNU
General Public License (v3)", "Apache License 2.0", "Expat License".
42 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/python-registry/review-python-
registry/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]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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 interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final
[Bug 1815936] New: Review Request: reSIProcate - SIP and TURN stacks, with SIP proxy and TURN server implementations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815936 Bug ID: 1815936 Summary: Review Request: reSIProcate - SIP and TURN stacks, with SIP proxy and TURN server implementations Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: dan...@pocock.com.au QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://fedrtc.org/resiprocate-review/resiprocate.spec SRPM URL: https://fedrtc.org/resiprocate-review/resiprocate-1.12.0~beta12-35.src.rpm Description: SIP and TURN stacks, with SIP proxy and TURN server implementations Fedora Account System Username: pocock -- 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 1815862] Review Request: pfetch - a pretty system information tool written in POSIX sh
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815862 --- Comment #2 from Seth Flynn --- (In reply to Artur Iwicki from comment #1) > >Summary:A pretty system information tool written in POSIX sh. > No dot/period at the end, please > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_tags_and_sections > > >%prep > >%autosetup > >wget https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dylanaraps/pfetch/master/Makefile > koji builds run without outernet access, so fetching the file via wget will > fail. You need to add the file as a Source:. > For copr, you should go to your project's settings -> other options -> and > disable the "Enable internet access during builds" checkbox. > > >%files > >/usr/bin/pfetch > Use macros for paths. > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/RPMMacros/ > #_macros_for_paths_set_and_used_by_build_systems followed your reply, latest build without outernet access can be found here:https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/sethfl/pfetch/build/1315052/ then the new .spec can be found here: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/sethfl/linux-packages/master/fedora/pfetch/SPECS/pfetch.spec and finally the srpm: https://github.com/sethfl/linux-packages/raw/master/fedora/pfetch/SRPMS/pfetch-0.6.0-1.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 1801423] Review Request: ocaml-zmq - ZeroMQ bindings for OCaml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1801423 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-0a941541db has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-0a941541db -- 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 1809879] Review Request: python-makeelf - ELF reader-writer library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1809879
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
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". 15 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-
makeelf/review-python-makeelf/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 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: 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
[Bug 1809723] Review Request: python-stdio-mgr - Context manager for mocking/wrapping stdin/stdout/stderr
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1809723
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". 14 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/python-stdio-mgr/review-python-stdio-
mgr/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 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: 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.
[Bug 1809711] Review Request: restview - ReStructuredText viewer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1809711
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
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". 28 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/restview/review-
restview/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
[Bug 1809700] Review Request: hledger-ui - Curses-style user interface for the hledger accounting tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1809700
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 ---
- Latest version is 1.17.1.1
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", "GNU General Public License". 20 files
have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/hledger-ui/review-hledger-
ui/licensecheck.txt
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 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.
[!]: 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.
[-]: %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
[Bug 1809684] Review Request: git-repair - Repairs a damaged git repository
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1809684
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Summary|Review Request: git-repair |Review Request: git-repair
|- Repairs a damanged git|- Repairs a damaged git
|repisitory |repository
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- 2 typos in summary:
Summary:Repairs a damaged git repository
Package approved. Please fix the typos before import.
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 Affero General Public License, Version 3", "Unknown or
generated". 48 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/git-repair/review-git-
repair/licensecheck.txt
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 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
[Bug 1797362] Review Request: chordpro - Typesetting ChordPro songbooks (lyrics + chords)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1797362 --- Comment #5 from Johan Vromans --- Thanks for your feedback. Your comments have been addressed. Spec URL: https://www.chordpro.org/fedora/chordpro.spec SRPM URL: https://www.chordpro.org/fedora/chordpro-0.974.1-4.fc31.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 1808877] Review Request: aesfix - correct bit errors in AES key schedule
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808877
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 #3 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- %make_build already contains %{?_smp_mflags}, no need to add it a second
time
- you're missing a BR to gcc-c++
Package approved. Please fix the aforementioned issues before import.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[!]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated". 11 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/aesfix/review-
aesfix/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 5 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: No rpmlint messages.
[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
[Bug 1809537] Review Request: python-pytest-ordering - Plugin to run your pytest tests in a specific order
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1809537
--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
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". 15 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/python-pytest-ordering/review-python-
pytest-ordering/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
python3-pytest-ordering
[?]: 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
[Bug 1809537] Review Request: python-pytest-ordering - Plugin to run your pytest tests in a specific order
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1809537
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
+ pytest-3.8 -v tests -k 'not test_run_marker_registered'
/var/tmp/rpm-tmp.2hTgAv: line 32: pytest-3.8: command not found
- You need to add Pytest as a BR
BuildRequires: python3-pytest
- Use PYTHONDONTWRITEBYTECODE=1 instead of %exclude directive:
PYTHONDONTWRITEBYTECODE=1 PYTHONPATH=%{buildroot}%{python3_sitelib}
pytest-%{python3_version} -v tests \
-k "not test_run_marker_registered"
--
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 1808406] Review Request: python-cooldict - Some useful dict-like structures
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808406 --- Comment #2 from Igor Gnatenko --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-cooldict -- 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 1813713] Review Request: gap-pkg-qpa - GAP package for quivers and path algebras
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1813713 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |MODIFIED --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-4ab9afe549 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-4ab9afe549 -- 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 1801423] Review Request: ocaml-zmq - ZeroMQ bindings for OCaml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1801423 --- Comment #8 from Igor Gnatenko --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ocaml-zmq -- 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 1808278] Review request: libevDevPlus - a c++ wrapper around libevdev
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808278 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Package approved. You still need to find a sponsor, follow: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_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 1809250] Review Request: python-sphobjinv - Sphinx objects.inv inspection/manipulation tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1809250 --- Comment #3 from Igor Gnatenko --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-sphobjinv -- 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 1807365] Review Request: nuspell - Free and open source C++ spell checking library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1807365
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Use a better name for your archive:
Source0:
https://github.com/%{name}/%{name}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
- Use the %cmake macro:
%cmake . -DBUILD_SHARED_LIBS=1 -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Debug \
-DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=%{_prefix}
- make %{?_smp_mflags} → %make_build
- %ldconfig_scriptlets is not needed anymore
- In order to avoid unintentional soname bump, we recommend not globbing the
major soname version, be more specific instead:
%{_libdir}/*.so.3*
--
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 1809267] Review Request: python-aiorestapi - Rapid rest resources for aiohttp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1809267 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||zebo...@gmail.com Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Last Closed||2020-03-22 16:52:49 --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1809266 *** -- 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 1809266] Review Request: python-aiorestapi - Rapid rest resources for aiohttp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1809266 --- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin --- *** Bug 1809267 has been marked as a duplicate of 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 1809266] Review Request: python-aiorestapi - Rapid rest resources for aiohttp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1809266
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
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]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "Apache License 2.0". 3 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/python-aiorestapi/review-python-
aiorestapi/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 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are
[Bug 1815889] Review Request: rust-liquid-derive - Liquid templating language for Rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815889 Bug 1815889 depends on bug 1815888, which changed state. Bug 1815888 Summary: Review Request: rust-proc-quote - Procedural macro implementation of quote! https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815888 What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- 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 1815888] Review Request: rust-proc-quote - Procedural macro implementation of quote!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815888 Igor Gnatenko changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-03-22 16:32:04 -- 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 1811485] Review Request: non-daw - Digital Audio Workstation for Jack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811485 --- Comment #16 from Erich Eickmeyer --- Changelog version is fixed. Thanks for everything Guido! -- 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 1815892] Review Request: rust-liquid-core - Core liquid functionality
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815892 Bug 1815892 depends on bug 1815890, which changed state. Bug 1815890 Summary: Review Request: rust-kstring - Key String: optimized for map keys https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815890 What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- 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 1815894] Review Request: rust-liquid-lib - Liquid templating language for Rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815894 Bug 1815894 depends on bug 1815890, which changed state. Bug 1815890 Summary: Review Request: rust-kstring - Key String: optimized for map keys https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815890 What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- 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 1815896] Review Request: rust-liquid - Liquid templating language for Rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815896 Bug 1815896 depends on bug 1815890, which changed state. Bug 1815890 Summary: Review Request: rust-kstring - Key String: optimized for map keys https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815890 What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- 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 1815890] Review Request: rust-kstring - Key String: optimized for map keys
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815890 Igor Gnatenko changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-03-22 16:14:03 -- 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 1815886] Review Request: rust-proc-quote-impl - Procedural macro implementation of quote!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815886 Igor Gnatenko changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-03-22 16:13:56 -- 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 1815888] Review Request: rust-proc-quote - Procedural macro implementation of quote!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815888 Bug 1815888 depends on bug 1815886, which changed state. Bug 1815886 Summary: Review Request: rust-proc-quote-impl - Procedural macro implementation of quote! https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815886 What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- 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 1815892] Review Request: rust-liquid-core - Core liquid functionality
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815892 Bug 1815892 depends on bug 1815891, which changed state. Bug 1815891 Summary: Review Request: rust-anymap - Safe and convenient store for one value of each type https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815891 What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- 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 1815891] Review Request: rust-anymap - Safe and convenient store for one value of each type
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815891 Igor Gnatenko changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-03-22 16:13:55 -- 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 1815896] Review Request: rust-liquid - Liquid templating language for Rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815896 --- Comment #2 from Igor Gnatenko --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-liquid -- 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 1815894] Review Request: rust-liquid-lib - Liquid templating language for Rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815894 --- Comment #2 from Igor Gnatenko --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-liquid-lib -- 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 1815892] Review Request: rust-liquid-core - Core liquid functionality
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815892 --- Comment #2 from Igor Gnatenko --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-liquid-core -- 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 1815889] Review Request: rust-liquid-derive - Liquid templating language for Rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815889 --- Comment #2 from Igor Gnatenko --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-liquid-derive -- 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 1815890] Review Request: rust-kstring - Key String: optimized for map keys
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815890 --- Comment #2 from Igor Gnatenko --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-kstring -- 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 1815891] Review Request: rust-anymap - Safe and convenient store for one value of each type
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815891 --- Comment #2 from Igor Gnatenko --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-anymap -- 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 1815888] Review Request: rust-proc-quote - Procedural macro implementation of quote!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815888 --- Comment #2 from Igor Gnatenko --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-proc-quote -- 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 1815886] Review Request: rust-proc-quote-impl - Procedural macro implementation of quote!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815886 --- Comment #2 from Igor Gnatenko --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-proc-quote-impl -- 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 1804538] Review Request: ghc-path-io - Interface to directory package for users of path
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1804538 --- Comment #5 from Igor Gnatenko --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ghc-path-io -- 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 1815258] Review Request: python-requests-pkcs12 - Add PKCS12 support to the requests library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815258 --- Comment #3 from Igor Gnatenko --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-requests-pkcs12 -- 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 1809097] Review Request: php-marcusschwarz-lesserphp - a LESS compiler written in PHP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1809097 --- Comment #19 from Igor Gnatenko --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/php-marcusschwarz-lesserphp -- 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 1815896] Review Request: rust-liquid - Liquid templating language for Rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815896 Neal Gompa changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||ngomp...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ngomp...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Neal Gompa --- Package was generated through rust2rpm, simplifying the review considerably. - Conforms to packaging guidelines (rust2rpm generated spec) - license correct and valid - only sources installed 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 1815894] Review Request: rust-liquid-lib - Liquid templating language for Rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815894 Neal Gompa changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||ngomp...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ngomp...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Neal Gompa --- Package was generated through rust2rpm, simplifying the review considerably. - Conforms to packaging guidelines (rust2rpm generated spec) - license correct and valid - only sources installed 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 1815892] Review Request: rust-liquid-core - Core liquid functionality
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815892 Neal Gompa changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||ngomp...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ngomp...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Neal Gompa --- Package was generated through rust2rpm, simplifying the review considerably. - Conforms to packaging guidelines (rust2rpm generated spec) - license correct and valid - only sources installed 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 1815889] Review Request: rust-liquid-derive - Liquid templating language for Rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815889 Neal Gompa changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||ngomp...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ngomp...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Neal Gompa --- Package was generated through rust2rpm, simplifying the review considerably. - Conforms to packaging guidelines (rust2rpm generated spec) - license correct and valid - only sources installed 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 1815890] Review Request: rust-kstring - Key String: optimized for map keys
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815890 Neal Gompa changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||ngomp...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ngomp...@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Neal Gompa --- Package was generated through rust2rpm, simplifying the review considerably. - Conforms to packaging guidelines (rust2rpm generated spec) - license correct and valid - only sources installed 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 1815891] Review Request: rust-anymap - Safe and convenient store for one value of each type
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815891 Neal Gompa changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||ngomp...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ngomp...@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Neal Gompa --- Package was generated through rust2rpm, simplifying the review considerably. - Conforms to packaging guidelines (rust2rpm generated spec) - license correct and valid - only sources installed 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 1815888] Review Request: rust-proc-quote - Procedural macro implementation of quote!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815888 Neal Gompa changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||ngomp...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ngomp...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Neal Gompa --- Package was generated through rust2rpm, simplifying the review considerably. - Conforms to packaging guidelines (rust2rpm generated spec) - license correct and valid - only sources installed 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 1815886] Review Request: rust-proc-quote-impl - Procedural macro implementation of quote!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815886 Neal Gompa changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||ngomp...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ngomp...@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Neal Gompa --- Package was generated through rust2rpm, simplifying the review considerably. - Conforms to packaging guidelines (rust2rpm generated spec) - license correct and valid - only sources installed 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 1815892] Review Request: rust-liquid-core - Core liquid functionality
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815892 Igor Gnatenko changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1815896 (rust-liquid) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815896 [Bug 1815896] Review Request: rust-liquid - Liquid templating language for Rust -- 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 1815890] Review Request: rust-kstring - Key String: optimized for map keys
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815890 Igor Gnatenko changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1815896 (rust-liquid) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815896 [Bug 1815896] Review Request: rust-liquid - Liquid templating language for Rust -- 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 1815894] Review Request: rust-liquid-lib - Liquid templating language for Rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815894 Igor Gnatenko changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1815896 (rust-liquid) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815896 [Bug 1815896] Review Request: rust-liquid - Liquid templating language for Rust -- 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 1815896] Review Request: rust-liquid - Liquid templating language for Rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815896 Igor Gnatenko changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1815885 Depends On||1815890 (rust-kstring), ||1815892 (rust-liquid-core), ||1815889 ||(rust-liquid-derive), ||1815894 (rust-liquid-lib) Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815885 [Bug 1815885] rust-bat-0.13.0 is available https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815889 [Bug 1815889] Review Request: rust-liquid-derive - Liquid templating language for Rust https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815890 [Bug 1815890] Review Request: rust-kstring - Key String: optimized for map keys https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815892 [Bug 1815892] Review Request: rust-liquid-core - Core liquid functionality https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815894 [Bug 1815894] Review Request: rust-liquid-lib - Liquid templating language for Rust -- 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 1815889] Review Request: rust-liquid-derive - Liquid templating language for Rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815889 Igor Gnatenko changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1815896 (rust-liquid) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815896 [Bug 1815896] Review Request: rust-liquid - Liquid templating language for Rust -- 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 1815896] New: Review Request: rust-liquid - Liquid templating language for Rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815896 Bug ID: 1815896 Summary: Review Request: rust-liquid - Liquid templating language for Rust Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rust-liquid.spec SRPM URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rust-liquid-0.20.0-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: Liquid templating language for Rust. Fedora Account System Username: ignatenkobrain -- 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 1815894] Review Request: rust-liquid-lib - Liquid templating language for Rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815894 Igor Gnatenko changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1815890 (rust-kstring), ||1815892 (rust-liquid-core) Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815890 [Bug 1815890] Review Request: rust-kstring - Key String: optimized for map keys https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815892 [Bug 1815892] Review Request: rust-liquid-core - Core liquid functionality -- 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 1815892] Review Request: rust-liquid-core - Core liquid functionality
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815892 Igor Gnatenko changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1815894 (rust-liquid-lib) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815894 [Bug 1815894] Review Request: rust-liquid-lib - Liquid templating language for Rust -- 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 1815890] Review Request: rust-kstring - Key String: optimized for map keys
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815890 Igor Gnatenko changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1815894 (rust-liquid-lib) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815894 [Bug 1815894] Review Request: rust-liquid-lib - Liquid templating language for Rust -- 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 1815894] New: Review Request: rust-liquid-lib - Liquid templating language for Rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815894 Bug ID: 1815894 Summary: Review Request: rust-liquid-lib - Liquid templating language for Rust Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rust-liquid-lib.spec SRPM URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rust-liquid-lib-0.20.0-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: Liquid templating language for Rust. Fedora Account System Username: ignatenkobrain -- 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 1815862] Review Request: pfetch - a pretty system information tool written in POSIX sh
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815862 Artur Iwicki changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fed...@svgames.pl Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value --- Comment #1 from Artur Iwicki --- >Summary:A pretty system information tool written in POSIX sh. No dot/period at the end, please https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_tags_and_sections >%prep >%autosetup >wget https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dylanaraps/pfetch/master/Makefile koji builds run without outernet access, so fetching the file via wget will fail. You need to add the file as a Source:. For copr, you should go to your project's settings -> other options -> and disable the "Enable internet access during builds" checkbox. >%files >/usr/bin/pfetch Use macros for paths. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/RPMMacros/#_macros_for_paths_set_and_used_by_build_systems -- 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 1815892] Review Request: rust-liquid-core - Core liquid functionality
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815892 Igor Gnatenko changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1815891 (rust-anymap), ||1815890 (rust-kstring), ||1815889 ||(rust-liquid-derive) Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815889 [Bug 1815889] Review Request: rust-liquid-derive - Liquid templating language for Rust https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815890 [Bug 1815890] Review Request: rust-kstring - Key String: optimized for map keys https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815891 [Bug 1815891] Review Request: rust-anymap - Safe and convenient store for one value of each type -- 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 1815891] Review Request: rust-anymap - Safe and convenient store for one value of each type
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815891 Igor Gnatenko changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1815892 (rust-liquid-core) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815892 [Bug 1815892] Review Request: rust-liquid-core - Core liquid functionality -- 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 1815890] Review Request: rust-kstring - Key String: optimized for map keys
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815890 Igor Gnatenko changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1815892 (rust-liquid-core) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815892 [Bug 1815892] Review Request: rust-liquid-core - Core liquid functionality -- 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 1815892] New: Review Request: rust-liquid-core - Core liquid functionality
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815892 Bug ID: 1815892 Summary: Review Request: rust-liquid-core - Core liquid functionality Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rust-liquid-core.spec SRPM URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rust-liquid-core-0.20.0-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: Core liquid functionality. Fedora Account System Username: ignatenkobrain -- 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 1815889] Review Request: rust-liquid-derive - Liquid templating language for Rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815889 Igor Gnatenko changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1815892 (rust-liquid-core) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815892 [Bug 1815892] Review Request: rust-liquid-core - Core liquid functionality -- 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 1815891] New: Review Request: rust-anymap - Safe and convenient store for one value of each type
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815891 Bug ID: 1815891 Summary: Review Request: rust-anymap - Safe and convenient store for one value of each type Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rust-anymap.spec SRPM URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rust-anymap-0.12.1-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: Safe and convenient store for one value of each type. Fedora Account System Username: ignatenkobrain -- 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 1815890] New: Review Request: rust-kstring - Key String: optimized for map keys
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815890 Bug ID: 1815890 Summary: Review Request: rust-kstring - Key String: optimized for map keys Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rust-kstring.spec SRPM URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rust-kstring-0.1.0-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: Key String: optimized for map keys. Fedora Account System Username: ignatenkobrain -- 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 1809884] Review Request: ghc-iso8601-time - Convert to/from the ISO 8601 time format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1809884 --- Comment #1 from Jens Petersen --- This needed for the bugzilla library. -- 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 1815888] Review Request: rust-proc-quote - Procedural macro implementation of quote!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815888 Igor Gnatenko changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1815889 ||(rust-liquid-derive) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815889 [Bug 1815889] Review Request: rust-liquid-derive - Liquid templating language for Rust -- 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 1815889] New: Review Request: rust-liquid-derive - Liquid templating language for Rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815889 Bug ID: 1815889 Summary: Review Request: rust-liquid-derive - Liquid templating language for Rust Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rust-liquid-derive.spec SRPM URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rust-liquid-derive-0.20.0-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: Liquid templating language for Rust. Fedora Account System Username: ignatenkobrain -- 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
