[Bug 1816858] Review Request: kata-agent - kata containers guest agent
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816858 Fabiano Fidêncio changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1816457] Review Request: ocaml-mlmpfr - OCaml bindings for MPFR
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816457
Vasiliy Glazov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Vasiliy Glazov ---
Approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright*
GNU Lesser General Public License (v3 or later)". 16 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/vascom/1816457-ocaml-mlmpfr/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.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: 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 must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[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
Ocaml:
[x]: This should never happen
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package
[Bug 1816457] Review Request: ocaml-mlmpfr - OCaml bindings for MPFR
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816457 --- Comment #3 from Jerry James --- Do you mean the .so in the stublibs directory? Yes, that is normal. That shared object is to support the bytecode version of this library. You can see similar .so files in packages such as ocaml-runtime and ocaml-lablgtk. -- 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 1801451] Review Request: multimarkdown - Lightweight markup processor to produce HTML, LaTeX, and more
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1801451 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-b6d95d0287 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problem still persists, 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 1813860] Review Request: micropipenv - A lightweight wrapper for pip to support requirements.txt, Pipenv and Poetry lock files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1813860 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-5eb0c28ee6 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problem still persists, 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 1801451] Review Request: multimarkdown - Lightweight markup processor to produce HTML, LaTeX, and more
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1801451 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-bf81f16134 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problem still persists, 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 1816627] Review Request: vim-rhubarb - GitHub support for vim-fugitive plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816627 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Kadlčík --- One more thing. I believe the release version is not optimal. Please see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_snapshots Currently, the release is 1.git513059.fc30 but the documentation suggests this instead MMDD. MMDD -- 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 1816627] Review Request: vim-rhubarb - GitHub support for vim-fugitive plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816627
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Kadlčík ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= 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". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /tmp/1816627-vim-rhubarb/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 must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[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:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: 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
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
= EXTRA items =
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
---
Checking: vim-rhubarb-0-1.git513059.fc33.noarch.rpm
[Bug 1816627] Review Request: vim-rhubarb - GitHub support for vim-fugitive plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816627 Jakub Kadlčík changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(praiskup@redhat.c ||om) -- 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 1816627] Review Request: vim-rhubarb - GitHub support for vim-fugitive plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816627
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Kadlčík ---
When I install the package, I would expect help to be available. Please try
:help rhubarb.txt
I think you will need to explicitly copy the doc file into vimfiles_root and
then call helptags. For inspiration, I would look into vim-fugitive.spec.
They do it this way:
%install
install -D -p -m 0644 doc/fugitive.txt
%{buildroot}%{vimfiles_root}/doc/fugitive.txt
%postun
> %{vimfiles_root}/doc/tags
vim -c ":helptags %{vimfiles_root}/doc" -c :q &> /dev/null
%endif
Otherwise, the package looks good to me.
--
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 1816872] New: Review Request: vim-fugitive-pagure - Pagure support for vim-fugitive plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816872 Bug ID: 1816872 Summary: Review Request: vim-fugitive-pagure - Pagure support for vim-fugitive plugin Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jkadl...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/frostyx/vim-fugitive-pagure/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01319617-vim-fugitive-pagure/vim-fugitive-pagure.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/frostyx/vim-fugitive-pagure/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01319617-vim-fugitive-pagure/vim-fugitive-pagure-1.1-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: Pagure support for :Gbrowse feature provided by vim-fugitive plugin Fedora Account System Username: frostyx -- 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 1816627] Review Request: vim-rhubarb - GitHub support for vim-fugitive plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816627 Jakub Kadlčík changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jkadl...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jkadl...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1812279] Review Request: rust-extend - Create extensions for types you don't own
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1812279 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 1811183] Review Request: golang-github-aliyun-cli - Alibaba Cloud CLI
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811183
--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Your stuff doesn't work for d/l the second archive, please fix:
# https://github.com/aliyun/aliyun-cli
%global goipath0 github.com/aliyun/aliyun-cli
Version: 3.0.36
# https://github.com/aliyun/aliyun-openapi-meta
%global goipath1 github.com/aliyun/aliyun-openapi-meta
%global version1 0
%global commit1 3e9d6a741c5029c92f6447e4137a6531f037a931
%global gometarepoaliyun-openapi-meta
%global gometadir %{gometarepo}-%{commit1}
%gometa -a
[…]
Source0:%{gosource0}
Source1:%{gosource1}
- Build fails:
# github.com/aliyun/aliyun-cli/oss/lib
../aliyun-openapi-meta-3e9d6a741c5029c92f6447e4137a6531f037a931/_build/src/github.com/aliyun/aliyun-cli/oss/lib/cli_bridge.go:157:12:
undefined: credentials.Configuration
../aliyun-openapi-meta-3e9d6a741c5029c92f6447e4137a6531f037a931/_build/src/github.com/aliyun/aliyun-cli/oss/lib/cli_bridge.go:160:11:
undefined: credentials.Configuration
../aliyun-openapi-meta-3e9d6a741c5029c92f6447e4137a6531f037a931/_build/src/github.com/aliyun/aliyun-cli/oss/lib/cli_bridge.go:166:11:
undefined: credentials.Configuration
../aliyun-openapi-meta-3e9d6a741c5029c92f6447e4137a6531f037a931/_build/src/github.com/aliyun/aliyun-cli/oss/lib/cli_bridge.go:173:11:
undefined: credentials.Configuration
../aliyun-openapi-meta-3e9d6a741c5029c92f6447e4137a6531f037a931/_build/src/github.com/aliyun/aliyun-cli/oss/lib/cli_bridge.go:183:11:
undefined: credentials.Configuration
../aliyun-openapi-meta-3e9d6a741c5029c92f6447e4137a6531f037a931/_build/src/github.com/aliyun/aliyun-cli/oss/lib/cli_bridge.go:196:32:
credential.GetAccessKeyID undefined (type credentials.Credential has no field
or method GetAccessKeyID, but does have GetAccessKeyId)
../aliyun-openapi-meta-3e9d6a741c5029c92f6447e4137a6531f037a931/_build/src/github.com/aliyun/aliyun-cli/oss/lib/cli_bridge.go:200:33:
credential.GetAccessSecret undefined (type credentials.Credential has no field
or method GetAccessSecret)
Patch the source code to move from GetAccessKeyID to GetAccessKeyId
(https://github.com/aliyun/credentials-go/commit/1c7b658dbc47f5d2ccd5e6e4a379613708f6f277).
Send patch upstream
--
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 1816858] Review Request: kata-agent - kata containers guest agent
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816858 Cole Robinson changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||dinec...@redhat.com, ||fiden...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|fiden...@redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Cole Robinson --- Assigning to Fabiano but maybe c3d wants to take it, both cc'd -- 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 1816858] New: Review Request: kata-agent - kata containers guest agent
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816858 Bug ID: 1816858 Summary: Review Request: kata-agent - kata containers guest agent Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: crobi...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~crobinso/reviews/kata-agent/kata-agent.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~crobinso/reviews/kata-agent/kata-agent-1.11.0-0.1.alpha1.fc33.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: crobinso Description: Kata containers guest image agent. This is used inside the appliance OS image for kata-containers. https://github.com/kata-containers/agent Currently this code is in Fedora, but it is built as part of the kata-osbuilder package. This separates the two. The file locations are changed so there is presently no conflict. kata-osbuilder will need some packaging changes to use the new location. -- 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 1811183] Review Request: golang-github-aliyun-cli - Alibaba Cloud CLI
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811183
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Don't gzip manpage yourself:
gzip %{gobuilddir}/share/man/man1/aliyun.1
- Don't do that
for dir in bin cli oss; do
install -m 0755 -vd %{buildroot}%{_pkgdocdir}/$dir
done
for doc in %{godocs}; do
install -m 0644 -vp %{gobuilddir}/src/%{goipath}/$doc
%{buildroot}%{_pkgdocdir}/$doc
done
instead rename the multiple READMEs in %prep otherwise you'll overwrite them in
the dev package too
%global godocs CHANGELOG.md README-CN.md README.md README-bin.md\\\
README-cli.md README-CN-oss.md README-oss.md
- use %global not %define:
%global gometaabs %{_builddir}/%{gometadir}
--
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 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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-7b83f9153d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-7b83f9153d -- 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 1811182] Review Request: golang-github-aliyun-ossutil - A user friendly command line tool to access AliCloud OSS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811182
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Don't gzip yourself, it is handled by rpm:
gzip %{gobuilddir}/share/man/man1/ossutil.1
- Source is 404, add the tag to correctly d/l it:
# https://github.com/aliyun/ossutil
%global goipath github.com/aliyun/ossutil
Version:1.6.10
%global tag 1.6.10
- License ok
- Latest version packaged
- Builds in mock
- No rpmlint errors
- Conforms to Packaging Guidelines
--
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 1787218] Review Request: python-aiopg - Postgres integration with asyncio
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1787218 --- Comment #4 from Fabian Affolter --- Thanks for the review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1811182] Review Request: golang-github-aliyun-ossutil - A user friendly command line tool to access AliCloud OSS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811182 Bug 1811182 depends on bug 1811181, which changed state. Bug 1811181 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-aliyun-oss-sdk - Aliyun OSS SDK for Go https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811181 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG -- 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 1811183] Review Request: golang-github-aliyun-cli - Alibaba Cloud CLI
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811183 Bug 1811183 depends on bug 1811181, which changed state. Bug 1811181 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-aliyun-oss-sdk - Aliyun OSS SDK for Go https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811181 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG -- 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 1811181] Review Request: golang-github-aliyun-oss-sdk - Aliyun OSS SDK for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811181 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||zebo...@gmail.com Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed||2020-03-24 21:22:17 --- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Already packaged: golang-github-aliyun-oss May need an update, send a PR/bug if needed. -- 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 1811180] Review Request: golang-github-droundy-goopt - Getopt-like flags package for golang
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811180 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - Enable tests: %bcond_without check - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines Package approved. Please fix the aforementioned issue before import. -- 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 1811179] Review Request: golang-github-alyu-configparser - Config ini file parser in Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811179
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Enable the tests:
%bcond_without check
- perl-Digest-SHA *is* needed for test
%if %{with check}
BuildRequires: perl-Digest-SHA
%endif
- License ok
- Latest version packaged
- Builds in mock
- No rpmlint errors
- Conforms to Packaging Guidelines
--
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 1811177] Review Request: golang-github-aliyun-credentials - Alibaba Cloud Credentials for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811177 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zebo...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - You seem to be confused about how conditionals work, please read https://rpm.org/user_doc/conditional_builds.html %bcond_with disables something by default whereas %bcond_without enables something by default. So write: %bcond_without check so enable checks. - Bump to 0.0.3 - There's a test error due to a change in *Go 1.14*, now URL are between quotes. Report it upstream and patch it locally with sed in %prep for now. --- FAIL: Test_doaction (0.00s) credential_test.go:182: Error Trace:credential_test.go:182 Error: Not equal: expected: "parse # #%gfdf: invalid URL escape \"%gf\"" actual : "parse \"# #%gfdf\": invalid URL escape \"%gf\"" Diff: --- Expected +++ Actual @@ -1 +1 @@ -parse # #%gfdf: invalid URL escape "%gf" +parse "# #%gfdf": invalid URL escape "%gf" Test: Test_doaction FAIL sed -i 's|parse # #%%gfdf:|parse "# #%%gfdf":|' credentials/credential_test.go - License ok - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines -- 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 1809723] Review Request: python-stdio-mgr - Context manager for mocking/wrapping stdin/stdout/stderr
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1809723 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-stdio-mgr -- 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 1811174] Review Request: golang-github-alibabacloud-tea - Support for TEA OpenAPI DSL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811174 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zebo...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - Enable the tests: %bcond_without check There's a test error due to a change in *Go 1.14*, now URL are between quotes. Report it upstream and patch it locally with sed in %prep for now. --- FAIL: Test_DoRequest (0.00s) assert.go:42: parse # #%gfdf: invalid URL escape "%gf" != parse "# #%gfdf": invalid URL escape "%gf" sed -i 's|parse # #%%gfdf:|parse "# #%%gfdf":|' tea/tea_test.go - Bump to 0.0.11 - License ok - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines -- 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 1809723] Review Request: python-stdio-mgr - Context manager for mocking/wrapping stdin/stdout/stderr
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1809723 --- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter --- Thanks for the review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1811265] Review Request: rust-xkbcommon - keyboard handling library from crates.rs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811265 --- Comment #5 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-xkbcommon -- 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 1811173] Review Request: golang-github-alibabacloud-debug - Alibaba Cloud Debug function for Golang
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811173 --- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Also you need to enable the tests -- 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 1811173] Review Request: golang-github-alibabacloud-debug - Alibaba Cloud Debug function for Golang
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811173 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines Package approved. You still need to find a sponsor. See 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 1809261] Review Request: fixedptc - Fixed point math header only library for C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1809261 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-c5a68c90e4 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-c5a68c90e4 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-c5a68c90e4 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- 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 1809711] Review Request: restview - ReStructuredText viewer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1809711 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-d8a2d50f51 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-d8a2d50f51` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-d8a2d50f51 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- 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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|ON_QA --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-75a73a9af6 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-75a73a9af6 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-75a73a9af6 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- 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 1816093] Review Request: python-pytest-subtests - Support for unittest subTest() and subtests fixture
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816093 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-5b979c36d0 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-5b979c36d0 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-5b979c36d0 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- 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 1808509] Review Request: python-ailment - The angr intermediate language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808509 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-b94b260d22 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-b94b260d22 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-b94b260d22 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- 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 1811183] Review Request: golang-github-aliyun-cli - Alibaba Cloud CLI
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811183 Bug 1811183 depends on bug 1811176, which changed state. Bug 1811176 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-aliyun-alibaba-cloud-sdk - Alibaba Cloud SDK for Go https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811176 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG -- 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 1811176] Review Request: golang-github-aliyun-alibaba-cloud-sdk - Alibaba Cloud SDK for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811176 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||zebo...@gmail.com Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed||2020-03-24 19:55:01 --- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin --- This is already packaged: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/golang-github-aliyun-alibaba-cloud-sdk -- 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 1808411] Review Request: python-archinfo - Collection of classes that contain architecture-specific information
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808411 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-19287a0ec6 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-19287a0ec6 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-19287a0ec6 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- 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 1811777] Review Request: rubygem-puppet-resource_api - This library provides a simple way to write new native resources for puppet
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811777
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 ---
- Valid license shorthand for Apache-2.0 is ASL 2.0
License: ASL 2.0
- Bump to 1.8.13
- Remove these in %install, %exclude is to be used only for file exclusion
between multiple packages:
%exclude %{gem_instdir}/.gitignore
%exclude %{gem_instdir}/.rubocop.yml
%exclude %{gem_instdir}/.travis.yml
- Mark as %doc:
%doc %{gem_instdir}/CODEOWNERS
%license %{gem_instdir}/LICENSE
%doc %{gem_instdir}/NOTICE
- Are these really needed?
%{gem_instdir}/appveyor.yml
%{gem_instdir}/codecov.yml
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", "Apache License 2.0". 47 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/rubygem-puppet-resource_api/review-rubygem-
puppet-resource_api/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.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Ruby:
[x]: Platform dependent files must all go under %{gem_extdir_mri}, platform
independent under %{gem_dir}.
[x]: Gem package must not define a non-gem subpackage
[x]: Macro %{gem_extdir} is deprecated.
[x]: Gem package is named rubygem-%{gem_name}
[x]: Package contains BuildRequires: rubygems-devel.
[x]: Gem package must define %{gem_name} macro.
[x]: Pure Ruby package must be built as noarch
[x]: Package does not contain Requires: ruby(abi).
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
Note: Package contains font files
[-]: 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]:
[Bug 1811266] Review Request: squeekboard - mobile keyboard
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811266 --- Comment #3 from Nikhil Jha --- Ah, those tags didn't exist when I first made the package. Fixed that. Rebuilt with all changes in COPR: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/njha/mobile/build/1316378/ 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 1809910] Review Request: python-registry - Read access to Windows Registry files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1809910 --- Comment #5 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-registry -- 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 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 #7 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pytest-ordering -- 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 1809910] Review Request: python-registry - Read access to Windows Registry files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1809910 --- Comment #4 from Fabian Affolter --- 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 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 #6 from Fabian Affolter --- Thanks again for the review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1811775] Review Request: rubygem-semantic_puppet - Useful tools for working with Semantic Versions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811775
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 ---
- Valid license shorthand for Apache-2.0 is ASL 2.0
License: ASL 2.0
- Remove these in %install, %exclude is to be used only for file exclusion
between multiple packages:
%exclude %{gem_instdir}/.gitignore
%exclude %{gem_instdir}/.rubocop.yml
%exclude %{gem_instdir}/.travis.yml
%exclude %{gem_instdir}/.yardopts
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", "Apache License 2.0". 28 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/rubygem-semantic_puppet/review-rubygem-
semantic_puppet/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.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Ruby:
[x]: Platform dependent files must all go under %{gem_extdir_mri}, platform
independent under %{gem_dir}.
[x]: Gem package must not define a non-gem subpackage
[x]: Macro %{gem_extdir} is deprecated.
[x]: Gem package is named rubygem-%{gem_name}
[x]: Package contains BuildRequires: rubygems-devel.
[x]: Gem package must define %{gem_name} macro.
[x]: Pure Ruby package must be built as noarch
[x]: Package does not contain Requires: ruby(abi).
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
Note: Package contains font files
[-]: 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
[Bug 1809263] Review Request: wmbusmeters - Read the wireless mbus protocol to acquire utility meter readings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1809263 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-7761540107 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-7761540107 -- 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 1811774] Review Request: rubygem-puppetserver-ca - A simple CLI tool for interacting with Puppet Server's Certificate Authority
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811774
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 ---
- Valid shorthand for License: Apache License, Version 2.0 is ASL 2.0
License: ASL 2.0
- Bump to 1.6.0
- Remove these in %install:
%exclude %{gem_instdir}/.gitignore
%exclude %{gem_instdir}/.travis.yml
- Mark as %doc:
%doc %{gem_instdir}/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0". 37
files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/rubygem-puppetserver-ca/review-rubygem-
puppetserver-ca/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.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Ruby:
[x]: Platform dependent files must all go under %{gem_extdir_mri}, platform
independent under %{gem_dir}.
[x]: Gem package must not define a non-gem subpackage
[x]: Macro %{gem_extdir} is deprecated.
[x]: Gem package is named rubygem-%{gem_name}
[x]: Package contains BuildRequires: rubygems-devel.
[x]: Gem package must define %{gem_name} macro.
[x]: Pure Ruby package must be built as noarch
[x]: Package does not contain Requires: ruby(abi).
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
Note: Package contains font files
[-]: 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
[Bug 1811265] Review Request: rust-xkbcommon - keyboard handling library from crates.rs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811265 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1795360] Review Request: dhcpd-pools - ISC dhcpd lease analysis and reporting
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795360 --- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - That's not how you add a Patch: Patch0: dhcpd-pools-gnulib.patch […] %prep %setup -q # needed to handle gnulib/glibc compatibility gnulib-tool --update gnulib-tool --add-import # handle http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=gnulib.git;a=commit;h=ba4b91abd5dbe486c71465b0968aa1a4a1198bd7 %patch0 -p1 %build - Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Bundled gnulib but no Provides: bundled(gnulib) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bundled_Libraries#Requirement_if_you_bundle - License is not good: the lib part is under GPLv3+ and src/mustach.* under ASL 2.0. Please add them to the License: field and add a comment explaning the license breakdown. Apache License 2.0 -- dhcpd-pools-3.0/src/mustach.c dhcpd-pools-3.0/src/mustach.h BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License - dhcpd-pools-3.0/COPYING dhcpd-pools-3.0/doc/introduction.dox dhcpd-pools-3.0/src/analyze.c dhcpd-pools-3.0/src/dhcpd-pools.c dhcpd-pools-3.0/src/dhcpd-pools.h dhcpd-pools-3.0/src/getdata.c dhcpd-pools-3.0/src/hash.c dhcpd-pools-3.0/src/mustach-dhcpd-pools.c dhcpd-pools-3.0/src/other.c dhcpd-pools-3.0/src/output.c dhcpd-pools-3.0/src/sort.c GPL (v3 or later) - dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/alloca.in.h dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/arg-nonnull.h dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/arpa_inet.in.h dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/basename-lgpl.c dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/c++defs.h dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/c-ctype.h dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/c-strcase.h dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/c-strcasecmp.c dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/c-strcaseeq.h dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/c-strncasecmp.c dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/close-stream.c dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/close.c dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/closeout.c dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/closeout.h dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/config.charset dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/dirname-lgpl.c dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/dirname.h dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/dosname.h dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/errno.in.h dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/error.c dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/error.h dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/exitfail.c dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/exitfail.h dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/fclose.c dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/fcntl.in.h dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/fd-hook.c dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/fd-hook.h dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/fdopen.c dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/fflush.c dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/filename.h dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/flexmember.h dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/float+.h dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/float.c dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/float.in.h dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/fopen.c dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/fpending.c dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/fpending.h dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/fpurge.c dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/freading.c dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/freading.h dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/fseek.c dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/fseeko.c dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/fstat.c dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/ftell.c dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/ftello.c dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/getopt-cdefs.in.h dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/getopt-core.h dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/getopt-ext.h dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/getopt-pfx-core.h dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/getopt-pfx-ext.h dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/getopt.c dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/getopt.in.h dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/getopt1.c dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/getopt_int.h dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/getprogname.c dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/getprogname.h dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/gettext.h dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/hard-locale.c dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/hard-locale.h dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/intprops.h dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/isnan.c dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/isnand.c dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/isnanf.c dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/isnanl.c dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/itold.c dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/limits.in.h dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/localcharset.c dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/localcharset.h dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/localtime-buffer.c dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/localtime-buffer.h dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/lseek.c dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/malloc.c dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/malloca.c dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/malloca.h dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/math.in.h dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/mbrtowc.c dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/mbsinit.c dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/memchr.c dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/minmax.h dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/mktime-internal.h dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/mktime.c dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/msvc-inval.c dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/msvc-inval.h dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/msvc-nothrow.c dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/msvc-nothrow.h dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/netinet_in.in.h dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/nstrftime.c dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/pathmax.h dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/progname.c dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/progname.h dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/quote.h dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/quotearg.c dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/quotearg.h dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/realloc.c dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/ref-add.sin dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/ref-del.sin dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/setenv.c dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/stat-w32.c dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/stat-w32.h dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/stat.c dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/stdalign.in.h dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/stdbool.in.h dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/stddef.in.h dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/stdint.in.h dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/stdio-impl.h dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/stdio.in.h dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/stdlib.in.h dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/stpncpy.c dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/str-two-way.h dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/strdup.c dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/streq.h dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/strerror-override.c dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/strerror-override.h dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/strerror.c dhcpd-pools-3.0/lib/strftime.h
[Bug 1809262] Review Request: rtl-wmbus - Software defined receiver for wireless M-Bus with RTL-SDR
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1809262 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-b24468740a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-b24468740a -- 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 1809263] Review Request: wmbusmeters - Read the wireless mbus protocol to acquire utility meter readings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1809263 --- Comment #8 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/wmbusmeters -- 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 1809263] Review Request: wmbusmeters - Read the wireless mbus protocol to acquire utility meter readings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1809263 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-d3a031fbcf has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-d3a031fbcf -- 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 #9 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/chordpro -- 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 1809263] Review Request: wmbusmeters - Read the wireless mbus protocol to acquire utility meter readings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1809263 --- Comment #6 from Damian Wrobel --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #5) > Package approved. Thank you very much for the review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1811265] Review Request: rust-xkbcommon - keyboard handling library from crates.rs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811265 --- Comment #3 from Nikhil Jha --- Added the LICENSE file and rebuilt in COPR: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/njha/mobile/build/1316365/ 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 1806537] Review Request: gnome-flashback - GNOME Flashback session
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1806537 --- Comment #8 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gnome-flashback -- 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 1811266] Review Request: squeekboard - mobile keyboard
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811266
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
file-validate if there is such a file.
= 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", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v2
or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "NTP License (legal disclaimer)",
"*No copyright* Expat License". 104 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/squeekboard/review-
squeekboard/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
/etc/xdg/autostart(filesystem, usbauth-notifier)
[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.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported
[Bug 1811266] Review Request: squeekboard - mobile keyboard
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811266
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Why not use
https://source.puri.sm/Librem5/squeekboard/-/archive/v1.9.0/squeekboard-v1.9.0.tar.bz2
as a source?
- Validate the desktop file:
desktop-file-validate
%{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/applications/sm.puri.Squeekboard.desktop
- Use the correct macro for /etc + be more specific:
%{_sysconfdir}/xdg/autostart/squeekboard.desktop
- This should be executable:
squeekboard.x86_64: W: non-executable-in-bin /usr/bin/squeekboard-entry 644
squeekboard.x86_64: E: env-script-interpreter /usr/bin/squeekboard-entry
/usr/bin/env python3
squeekboard.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/bin/squeekboard-entry 644
/usr/bin/env python3
--
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 1811080] Review Request: golang-github-jsonnet-bundler - A jsonnet package manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811080 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |ERRATA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-ed2c544c02 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, 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 1816457] Review Request: ocaml-mlmpfr - OCaml bindings for MPFR
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816457 --- Comment #2 from Vasiliy Glazov --- Review is ready if you answer the question. -- 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 1801451] Review Request: multimarkdown - Lightweight markup processor to produce HTML, LaTeX, and more
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1801451 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-03-24 17:50:25 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-b7439ebdbc has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, 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 1813860] Review Request: micropipenv - A lightweight wrapper for pip to support requirements.txt, Pipenv and Poetry lock files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1813860 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-ddf4c8c827 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, 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 1811265] Review Request: rust-xkbcommon - keyboard handling library from crates.rs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811265
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- You must install the LICENSE file with %license in %files
%files devel
%doc README.md
%license LICENSE
%{cargo_registry}/%{crate}-%{version_no_tilde}/
- Latest version packaged
- Builds in mock
- No rpmlint errors
- Conforms to Packaging Guidelines
--
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 1787218] Review Request: python-aiopg - Postgres integration with asyncio
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1787218 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1809263] Review Request: wmbusmeters - Read the wireless mbus protocol to acquire utility meter readings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1809263 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1806539] Review Request: gnome-applets - Small applications for the GNOME panel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1806539 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1806544] Review Request: gnome-panel - GNOME Flashback panel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1806544 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 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 Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 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 Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 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 Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1773467] Review Request: avocado-vt - A avocado plugin for virtualization related tests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1773467
--- Comment #25 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Package is not installable:
DEBUG util.py:600: Error:
DEBUG util.py:600: Problem: conflicting requests
DEBUG util.py:600:- nothing provides python3.8dist(aexpect) needed by
python3-avocado-vt-77.0-1.fc33.noarch
DEBUG util.py:600:- nothing provides python3-avocado >= 51.0 needed by
python3-avocado-vt-77.0-1.fc33.noarch
DEBUG util.py:600:- nothing provides python3.8dist(avocado-framework) >= 68
needed by python3-avocado-vt-77.0-1.fc33.noarch
DEBUG util.py:602: (try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages
or '--nobest' to use not only best candidate packages)
- Own these directories:
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/avocado-plugins-vt/backends,
/usr/share/avocado-plugins-vt/shared, /usr/share/avocado-plugins-
vt/test-providers.d, /usr/share/avocado-plugins-vt
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]: 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 (v2) GNU
Lesser General Public License", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GNU General
Public License", "GPL (v2)". 820 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/avocado-
vt/review-avocado-vt/licensecheck.txt
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/avocado-plugins-vt/backends,
/usr/share/avocado-plugins-vt/shared, /usr/share/avocado-plugins-
vt/test-providers.d, /usr/share/avocado-plugins-vt
[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]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
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
[Bug 1816093] Review Request: python-pytest-subtests - Support for unittest subTest() and subtests fixture
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816093 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-5b979c36d0 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-5b979c36d0 -- 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 1794912] Review Request: nyancat - Nyancat rendered in your terminal.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1794912
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #15 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package does not use a name that already exists.
Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/nyancat
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names
= 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]: 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/nyancat/review-
nyancat/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 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 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
[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 Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 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 Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1816759] New: Review Request: python-xpath-expressions - Treat XPath expressions as Python objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816759 Bug ID: 1816759 Summary: Review Request: python-xpath-expressions - Treat XPath expressions as Python objects 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/python-xpath-expressions.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-xpath-expressions-1.0.1-1.fc31.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/orf/xpath-expressions Description: This is a small, lightweight Python library to aide in the manipulations of xpath expressions. It allows you to manipulate them as Python objects with Python expressions and operators. Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=42742697 rpmlint output: $ rpmlint python-xpath-expressions-1.0.1-1.fc31.src.rpm python-xpath-expressions.src:43: W: macro-in-comment %license 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint python3-xpath-expressions-1.0.1-1.fc31.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Fedora Account System Username: fab This package is needed for the xcat update. -- 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 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1806537] Review Request: gnome-flashback - GNOME Flashback session
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1806537 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1811295] Review Request: intel-clear-sans-fonts - A versatile font family for screen, print, and Web
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811295
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", "Apache License 2.0". 25 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/intel-clear-sans-fonts/review-intel-clear-
sans-fonts/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
= EXTRA items =
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint
[Bug 1816733] New: Review Request: rust-libslirp - High-level bindings & helper process for libslirp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816733 Bug ID: 1816733 Summary: Review Request: rust-libslirp - High-level bindings & helper process for libslirp Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: marcandre.lur...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://elmarco.fedorapeople.org/rust-libslirp.spec SRPM URL: https://elmarco.fedorapeople.org/rust-libslirp-4.0.0-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: High-level bindings & helper process for libslirp Fedora Account System Username: elmarco -- 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 #16 from l...@mellanox.com --- Thanks Honggang! The 'TAINTED_SCALAR +1' is an easy fix. I'll make it in next version. The "SLEEP +2" is the same as "Error: SLEEP (CWE-367): [#def26]" in last build, which is ok since this function happens during driver probe which could take while. (In reply to Honggang LI from comment #14) ... > Task URL: https://cov01.lab.eng.brq.redhat.com/covscanhub/task/164815/ > Comment: > > > Added (+), Fixed (-) > > SLEEP +2 > TAINTED_SCALAR+1 ... > * > > > Newly introduced defects > List of Defects > > Error: TAINTED_SCALAR (CWE-20): [#def1] ... > > Error: SLEEP (CWE-367): [#def2] ... > > Error: SLEEP (CWE-367): [#def3] ... -- 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 1812855] Review Request: php-pecl-rpminfo - RPM information
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1812855 --- Comment #5 from Remi Collet --- (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #3) > Taking this review. Have you find some time to start working on this the review ? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1773382] Review Request: home-assistant-cli - Command-line tool for Home Assistant
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1773382 --- Comment #4 from Fabian Affolter --- Updated files: Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/home-assistant-cli.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/home-assistant-cli-0.8.0-2.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 1773382] Review Request: home-assistant-cli - Command-line tool for Home Assistant
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1773382 --- Comment #3 from Fabian Affolter --- python-dateparser is now available. Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=42740266 -- 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 1815725] Re-Review Request: mkdocs-cinder - A clean responsive theme for the MkDocs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815725
--- Comment #2 from José Matos ---
Fedora review complains about three things.
Two of them are true but moot:
* the name already exists because this is a re-review;
* the package does not install properly because it requires mkdocs that has
just been approved.
The third is relevant:
* Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
Replace the line
%{python3_sitelib}/*
with
%{python3_sitelib}/cinder
%{python3_sitelib}/mkdocs_cinder-%{version}-py?.?.egg-info
I did not test it but it should be something along this.
Without looking I suspect that probably the other mkdocs theme probably suffer
from the same problem.
--
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 1816644] Review Request: assetfinder - Find domains and subdomains related to a given domain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816644 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 1816644] New: Review Request: assetfinder - Find domains and subdomains related to a given domain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816644 Bug ID: 1816644 Summary: Review Request: assetfinder - Find domains and subdomains related to a given domain 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/assetfinder.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/assetfinder-0.1.0-1.fc31.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/tomnomnom/assetfinder Description: Find domains and subdomains related to a given domain. Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=42738430 rpmlint output: $ rpmlint assetfinder-0.1.0-1.fc31.src.rpm assetfinder.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) subdomains -> sub domains, sub-domains, domains assetfinder.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subdomains -> sub domains, sub-domains, domains 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. $ rpmlint assetfinder-* assetfinder.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) subdomains -> sub domains, sub-domains, domains assetfinder.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subdomains -> sub domains, sub-domains, domains assetfinder.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary assetfinder 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 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 1816642] New: Review Request: golang-github-resty - Simple HTTP and REST client library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816642 Bug ID: 1816642 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-resty - Simple HTTP and REST client library 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/golang-github-resty.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/golang-github-resty-2.2.0-1.fc31.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/go-resty/resty Description: Simple HTTP and REST client library for Go. Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=42738403 rpmlint output: $ rpmlint golang-github-resty-2.2.0-1.fc31.src.rpm golang-github-resty.src: W: no-%build-section 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint golang-github-resty-devel-2.2.0-1.fc31.noarch.rpm golang-github-resty-devel.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/go-resty/resty/.goipath 1 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 1816301] Review Request: openfoam - computational fluid dynamics
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816301
--- Comment #7 from mark.ole...@esi-group.com ---
(In reply to david08741 from comment #3)
Nice to get the reviews - it shows that people care!
> Not a full review, but some comments:
>
> Group: is deprecated, please remove
OK for RedHat, probably leave for SuSE.
> License should be: GPLv3+
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#SoftwareLicenses
Interesting, any idea why are they not using or accepting
https://spdx.org/licenses/?
Thought this would be "standard".
> Name should probably not include the version:
> Name: openfoam
>
> I am not sure whether this is a MUST, but the release should start at 1 and
> be bumped whenever you change the spec, without a new release:
These are both open to discussion and suggestion about how best to solve.
OpenFOAM releases on a 6-month cycle in Jun and Dec, with version (API) denoted
as YYMM (eg, 1906, 1912).
Since the API and the internal models most certainly change between these
releases, it is fairly standard practice to have multiple versions installed or
installable on the system. There are various reasons that this is desirable:
- allows testing, porting of user models to the updated framework
- allows back-to-back comparison of simulation results, validation cases etc.
- avoids automatic upgrades of major versions. For some industries it is normal
to continue with a particular major version for the development lifetime of a
product (eg, a vehicle).
The best way that I came up with was to have numbered packages (eg,
openfoam1912, openfoam1906, etc) and use a top-level "openfoam" meta-package to
define what is the most current release. I guess it could be comparable to
having Qt4, Qt5, kde4, kde5, etc, except that the release numbers update every
6 months.
On copr, I'm just now experimenting with using the bugfix (patch) value for the
version. The patch value follows a YYMMDD value. This means that the current
spec would then have
Name: openfoam1912
Version: 200316# <- 2020-03-16
The release could than have the usual increment I guess?
> %defattr(-,root,root,-) isn't needed, please remove
OK
> I don't think prefix should be set; it is certainly not allowed to use /opt
This was also something that was discussed off-line (Fedora and Debian).
Need to have isolated, version-specific directories, but using an
"alternatives" framework does not appear to be a good fit.
We have approximately 300 executables and 160 libraries to deal with. I can't
imagine fitting them all into alternatives. Besides which, the choice of which
OpenFOAM version to use should be a user choice, not a systems choice.
Did look at trying to drop everything into /usr/lib/, or even install as
multi-arch, but without proper guidance decided on /opt for the moment.
I am most certainly open to suggestions.
> Buildroot should not be set:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_tags_and_sections
OK, might have been working from some older docs.
> '%package -n %{name}-examples' -> '%package examples'
Nice, much cleaner.
--
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 1811410] Re-Review Request: mkdocs - Python tool to create HTML documentation from markdown sources
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811410 José Matos changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from José Matos --- Thank you for taking care of my requests. You explanation regarding the dependenvies is fully convincing since nltk is an extra dependency of lunr. Now it all makes sense. :-) Eventually if you add the dependency to python-lunr it will be picked directly from python-lunr dependency. In any case this is an academic discussion since you are the maintainer of both packages and thus it is you call where to place the dependency. Now the revision: The license is correct and the spec file follows all the Fedora guidelines. Running fedora-review shows three warnings: 1) The license is in index.html that is not marked as %license. 2) The package name already exists in Fedora. 3) Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. They are false positives: 1) is funny and bogus. The license is already included so it does not make sense to add index.html; 2) sure enough, after all this is a re-review; 3) those files need to be there and there is already a -doc subpackage. So the package is 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 1816627] New: Review Request: vim-rhubarb - GitHub support for vim-fugitive plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816627 Bug ID: 1816627 Summary: Review Request: vim-rhubarb - GitHub support for vim-fugitive plugin Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: prais...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/praiskup/vim-rhubarb-rpm/master/vim-rhubarb.spec SRPM URL: http://praiskup.fedorapeople.org/vim-rhubarb-0-1.git513059.src.rpm Description: GitHub support for vim-fugitive plugin. Enables :Gbrowse from fugitive.vim to open GitHub URLs. Sets up :Git to use hub if installed rather than git (when available). In commit messages, GitHub issues, issue URLs, and collaborators can be omni-completed (, see :help compl-omni). Fedora Account System Username: praiskup -- 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 1809261] Review Request: fixedptc - Fixed point math header only library for C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1809261 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-7c40dbb62d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-7c40dbb62d -- 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 1816124] Review Request: python-rpmautospec - Package and CLI tool to generate release fields and changelogs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816124 --- Comment #4 from Adam Saleh --- I rearanged the spec-file to make it more readable, you can see the history of commits in the referenced repo. Another change is splitting out cli the executable to a separate package and renaming the plugin package to koji-builder-plugin-rpmautospec. Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/AdamSaleh/python-rpmautospec/master/python-rpmautospec.spec SRPM URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/AdamSaleh/python-rpmautospec/master/rpms/python-rpmautospec-0.0.1-1.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 1811410] Re-Review Request: mkdocs - Python tool to create HTML documentation from markdown sources
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811410 --- Comment #6 from Robin Lee --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/cheeselee/review/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01315964-mkdocs/mkdocs.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/cheeselee/review/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01315964-mkdocs/mkdocs-1.1-4.fc33.src.rpm Changes: - Drop explicit lunr requirement - License specified to BSD and Tumbolia (In reply to José Matos from comment #5) > (In reply to Robin Lee from comment #4) > > > These are not necessary. They are built automatically: > > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/ > > > #_dependencies > > > > These requirements are not automatically generated. > > python3dist(lunr) is generated: > > Requires > > mkdocs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > /usr/bin/python3 > bootswatch-fonts > fontawesome-fonts > fontawesome-fonts-web > google-roboto-slab-fonts > js-jquery1 > js-jquery2 > lato-fonts > python(abi) > python3.8dist(click) > python3.8dist(jinja2) > python3.8dist(livereload) > python3.8dist(lunr) > python3.8dist(markdown) > python3.8dist(pyyaml) > python3.8dist(setuptools) > python3.8dist(tornado) > python3dist(lunr) > python3dist(mdx-gh-links) > python3dist(nltk) > > Notice as lunr appears above. Fixed > > > Regarding nltk I am curious why it is a dependency of mkdocs, it is not > mentioned in the documentation and it does not show in the code. Mkdocs requires an optional feature of lunr. And that option feature of lunr requires nltk. > > > BTW the License should be: > > License: BSD and Tumbolia > > The Tumbolia appears because of file mkdocs-1.1/mkdocs/utils/ghp_import.py 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 1794912] Review Request: nyancat - Nyancat rendered in your terminal.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1794912
--- Comment #14 from Artur Iwicki ---
Taking a brief peek at "rpmbuild --showrc", %{set_build_flags} is called
automatically when using %{configure}, %{cmake} or %{meson} - I guess that
because of this, most Fedora packages have no need to call it explicitly in
%build.
Still, yeah, it would be a good idea to add that somewhere to the packaging
docs - I think the C/C++ guidelines would be the most appropriate place.
--
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 1816605] Review Request: gobuster - Directory/File, DNS and VHost busting tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816605 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 1816605] New: Review Request: gobuster - Directory/File, DNS and VHost busting tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816605 Bug ID: 1816605 Summary: Review Request: gobuster - Directory/File, DNS and VHost busting tool 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/gobuster.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/gobuster-3.0.1-1.fc31.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/OJ/gobuster Description: Directory/File, DNS and VHost busting tool written in Go. Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=42737373 rpmlint output: $ rpmlint gobuster-3.0.1-1.fc31.src.rpm gobuster.src: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/OJ/gobuster HTTP Error 401: UNAUTHORIZED 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint gobuster* gobuster.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gobuster gobuster-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/OJ/gobuster HTTP Error 401: UNAUTHORIZED gobuster-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/OJ/gobuster HTTP Error 401: UNAUTHORIZED 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 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 1809711] Review Request: restview - ReStructuredText viewer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1809711 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-d8a2d50f51 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-d8a2d50f51 -- 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
