[Bug 1809684] Review Request: git-repair - Repairs a damaged git repository
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1809684 --- Comment #3 from Jens Petersen --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1) > - 2 typos in summary: > > Summary:Repairs a damaged git repository > > Package approved. Please fix the typos before import. Sure, thanks,Robert-André: will do -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1812761] Review Request: imv - Image viewer for X11 and Wayland
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1812761 Aleksei Bavshin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-03-26 05:47:32 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1809684] Review Request: git-repair - Repairs a damaged git repository
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1809684 --- Comment #2 from Jens Petersen --- Thank you for the review https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/23672 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1804538] Review Request: ghc-path-io - Interface to directory package for users of path
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1804538 --- Comment #7 from Jens Petersen --- https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/23671 (f31) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1804538] Review Request: ghc-path-io - Interface to directory package for users of path
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1804538 --- Comment #6 from Jens Petersen --- https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/23670 (f32) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 #26 from lnie --- Hi Robert, We see conflicting requests problem because default avocado stream is banned on 32 and rawhide. I have checked,we will be able to install avocado-vt package successfully on Rawhide if we do "dnf module enable avocado:latest -y" first. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1804529] Review Request: pam-cryptsetup - PAM module for updating LUKS-encrypted volumes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1804529 --- Comment #5 from Michel Alexandre Salim --- Thanks! Will update soon. All this scrambling around with WFH made me neglect this request. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1817267] New: Review Request: libphonenumber - Google's phone number parsing library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1817267 Bug ID: 1817267 Summary: Review Request: libphonenumber - Google's phone number parsing library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: h...@nikhiljha.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://gitlab.com/fedora-mobile/libphonenumber/-/raw/master/libphonenumber.spec SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/335/42770335/libphonenumber-8.12.0-1.fc33.src.rpm Mock: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=42770334 Description: Google's common Java, C++ and JavaScript library for parsing, formatting, and validating international phone numbers. Fedora Account System Username: njha This is a dependency of the chatty package, which is the component of the phosh mobile shell that handles SMS. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-74a6cad57b 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 1811409] Review Request: python-mdx_gh_links - Python-Markdown Github-Links Extension
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811409 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-03-26 01:19:51 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-0cbc374ab3 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 1811410] Re-Review Request: mkdocs - Python tool to create HTML documentation from markdown sources
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811410 Bug 1811410 depends on bug 1811409, which changed state. Bug 1811409 Summary: Review Request: python-mdx_gh_links - Python-Markdown Github-Links Extension https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811409 What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1806810] Review Request: php-webflo-drupal-finder - Provides a class to locate a Drupal installation in a given path
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1806810 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-7448ce1956 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 1811266] Review Request: squeekboard - mobile keyboard
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811266 Bug 1811266 depends on bug 1811265, which changed state. Bug 1811265 Summary: Review Request: rust-xkbcommon - keyboard handling library from crates.rs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811265 What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1811265] Review Request: rust-xkbcommon - keyboard handling library from crates.rs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811265 Nikhil Jha changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-03-26 00:47:32 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 Nikhil Jha changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-03-26 00:46:07 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1817264] New: Review Request: feedbackd - visual, haptic, and audio feedback for GNOME
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1817264 Bug ID: 1817264 Summary: Review Request: feedbackd - visual, haptic, and audio feedback for GNOME Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: h...@nikhiljha.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://gitlab.com/fedora-mobile/feedbackd/-/raw/master/feedbackd.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/njha/mobile/fedora-rawhide-aarch64/01320724-feedbackd/feedbackd-0.0.0+git20200304-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: feedbackd provides a DBus daemon (feedbackd) to act on events to provide haptic, visual and audio feedback. It offers a library (libfeedback) and GObject introspection bindings to ease using it from applications. Fedora Account System Username: njha Built RPMs, build logs, etc on COPR: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/njha/mobile/packages/ This library is used by the latest `phosh` package, so updating that is blocked by this. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1812980] Review Request: academic-admin - Admin tool for the Academic website builder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1812980 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 1812973] Review Request: python-bibtexparser - A BibTeX parsing library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1812973 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 1812411] Review request: bookworm - simple, focused eBook reader
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1812411 --- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin --- https://github.com/babluboy/bookworm/pull/304 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1812411] Review request: bookworm - simple, focused eBook reader
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1812411
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Be more specific than that:
%{_bindir}/com.github.babluboy.bookworm
%{_datadir}/com.github.babluboy.bookworm
%{_datadir}/glib-2.0/schemas/com.github.babluboy.bookworm.gschema.xml
%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/*/apps/com.github.babluboy.bookworm.svg
%{_datadir}/applications/com.github.babluboy.bookworm.desktop
%{_metainfodir}/com.github.babluboy.bookworm.appdata.xml
- You need to handle the locales with %find_lang in %install
%find_lang com.github.babluboy.bookworm
[…]
%files -f com.github.babluboy.bookworm.lang
- You need to Requires: hicolor-icon-theme to own the icons directories
- Validate the desktop file:
BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils
[…]
desktop-file-validate
%{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/applications/com.github.babluboy.bookworm.desktop
- Validate the Appdata:
BuildRequires: libappstream-glib
[…]
appstream-util validate-relax --nonet
%{buildroot}%{_metainfodir}/com.github.babluboy.bookworm.appdata.xml
Validation will fail:
+ appstream-util validate-relax --nonet
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/bookworm-1.1.2-2.fc33.x86_64/usr/share/metainfo/com.github.babluboy.bookworm.appdata.xml
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/bookworm-1.1.2-2.fc33.x86_64/usr/share/metainfo/com.github.babluboy.bookworm.appdata.xml:
FAILED:
? tag-invalid : version was duplicated
? tag-invalid : versions are not in order [1.0.0 before
1.1.0]
Validation of files failed
See with upstream how to fix this.
- Remove .wef:
Release: 2%{?dist}.wef
- Separate your %changelog entries by a new line
- don't include Fedora release in changelog entry:
* Wed Mar 11 2020 Bob Hepple - 1.1.2-2
- fix Source0
* Sat Feb 22 2020 Bob Hepple - 1.1.2-1
- Initial version of the package
- Use a better name for your archive:
Source0: %{url}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review 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 1803223] Review Request: golang-github-google-starlark - Starlark is a dialect of Python intended for use as a configuration language.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1803223
--- Comment #6 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Version:0.0.0
Use
Version:0
if upstream has not set a version. And Release start at 0.1 for prerelease:
Release:0.1%{?dist}
- Use:
Name: %{goname}
- Don't repeat the name in the Summary:
Summary:Dialect of Python intended for use as a
configuration language
- Not sure what you're doing in %check? Why not use:
%check
%gocheck
only?
- Add version-release to your changelog entry
* Mon Jan 20 2020 Álex Sáez - 0-0.1.20190702git32f3451
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review 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 1803223] Review Request: golang-github-google-starlark - Starlark is a dialect of Python intended for use as a configuration language.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1803223 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|ASSIGNED CC||zebo...@gmail.com Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) --- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Blocking FE-NEEDSPONSOR. You need to find a sponsor, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1807753] Review Request: ydotool - Generic command-line automation tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1807753
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #6 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- rm this file in %install, %exclude is only used to sort the files between
multiple packages:
%exclude %{_libdir}/libydotool.a
- do not gzip the man pages, the compression is handled by rpm
- specify the mode
install -p -m 0644 Daemon/%{name}.service %{buildroot}/%{_unitdir}
- you need to add the systemd scriptlets, see
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_systemd
BuildRequires: systemd-rpm-macros
[…]
%post
%systemd_post %{name}.service
%preun
%systemd_preun %{name}.service
%postun
%systemd_postun_with_restart %{name}.service
- Be more specific:
%{_libdir}/libydotool.so
%{_unitdir}/%{name}.service
- The library must be versioned. See
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_downstream_so_name_versioning
Downstream .so name versioning
In cases where upstream ships unversioned .so library (so this is not needed
for plugins, drivers, etc.), the packager MUST try to convince upstream to
start versioning it.
If that fails due to unwilling or unresponsive upstream, the packager may start
versioning downstream but this must be done with caution and ideally only in
rare cases. We don’t want to create a library that could conflict with upstream
if they later start providing versioned shared libraries. Under no
circumstances should the unversioned library be shipped in Fedora.
- add a comment explaining why the patch is needed.
- add a newline between your changelog entries
- Fix the changelog entries:
ydotool.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog
0.1.9-0.1.20200322git.9c3a4e7.fc31 ['0.1.9-0.20200317.git.9c3a4e7.fc33',
'0.1.9-0.20200317.git.9c3a4e7']
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir.
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/#_devel_packages
- systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and
systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files.
Note: Systemd service file(s) in ydotool
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/Scriptlets/#_scriptlets
= 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", "Expat License". 12 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/ydotool/review-ydotool/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
[Bug 1808276] Review request: libuInputPlus - C++ wrapper around libuinput
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808276 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zebo...@gmail.com Depends On|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | --- Comment #10 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Sponsored. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1816872] Review Request: vim-fugitive-pagure - Pagure support for vim-fugitive plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816872 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Kadlčík --- Thank you for the review @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 1808278] Review request: libevDevPlus - a c++ wrapper around libevdev
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808278 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | --- Comment #7 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Sponsored. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1809624] Review Request: algobox - Algorithmic software
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1809624
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 #5 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Add the docs present in utilities
%doc utilities/AUTHORS utilities/CHANGELOG.txt
- Use %{qt5_qtwebengine_arches} as mentioned before.
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- 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.
Note: License file COPYING is not marked as %license
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2)", "GNU
Lesser General Public License". 166 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/algobox/review-algobox/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.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
Note: Macros in: algobox (description)
[-]: 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.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are 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
[Bug 1812294] Review Request: wicked - Network configuration infrastructure
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1812294 --- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/wicked -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1809918] Review Request: adobe-afdko - Adobe Font Development Kit for OpenType
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1809918
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Summary|Review Request: afdko - |Review Request: adobe-afdko
|Adobe Font Development Kit |- Adobe Font Development
|for OpenType|Kit for OpenType
--- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Bump to 3.2.0
- Not needed:
%ldconfig_scriptlets
- Include docs/
%doc docs/
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "Apache License 2.0", "SIL Open Font
License 1.1", "*No copyright* SIL Open Font License 1.1". 6815 files
have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/adobe-afdko/review-adobe-
afdko/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 163840 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if
[Bug 1812980] Review Request: academic-admin - Admin tool for the Academic website builder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1812980 --- Comment #2 from W. Michael Petullo --- Spec URL: https://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/academic-admin.spec SRPM URL: https://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/academic-admin-0.5.1-1.fc32.src.rpm Description: Admin tool for the Academic website builder Fedora Account System Username: mikep - New upstream version - Patch out shebang lines from non-executable Python files - Update Source0 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1813452] Review Request: python-pycoingecko - Python wrapper around the CoinGecko API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1813452
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License". 7 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/python-pycoingecko/review-python-
pycoingecko/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.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are
[Bug 1812973] Review Request: python-bibtexparser - A BibTeX parsing library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1812973 --- Comment #2 from W. Michael Petullo --- Spec URL: https://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/python-bibtexparser.spec SRPM URL: https://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/python-bibtexparser-1.1.0-2.fc32.src.rpm Description: A BibTeX parsing library Fedora Account System Username: mikep - Patch out shebang lines from non-executable Python files - License is BSD or LGPLv3 - Update Source0 - Generate documentation using Sphinx -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-6cc0bb7f4f 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-2020-6cc0bb7f4f` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-6cc0bb7f4f 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 1816457] Review Request: ocaml-mlmpfr - OCaml bindings for MPFR
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816457 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-f58331b1ac 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-f58331b1ac \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-f58331b1ac 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 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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-bbcc3e9d7d 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-bbcc3e9d7d \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-bbcc3e9d7d 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 1806864] Review Request: python-asteval - Evaluator of Python expression using ast module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1806864
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License". 20 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/python-asteval/review-python-
asteval/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
python3-asteval
[?]: Package functions as
[Bug 1813406] Review Request: wxGTK - GTK port of the wxWidgets GUI library (dev version)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1813406 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 --- - %makeinstall is deprecated, you should use %make_install - license files must be installed with %license not %doc Package Review == Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: === - 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. Note: License file licence.txt is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/wxGTK 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]: 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]: 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", "NTP License", "GNU Lesser General Public License", "GPL (v2 or later) GNU Lesser General Public License (v2 or later)", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v2)", "*No copyright* Boost Software License 1.0", "GPL (v2 or later)", "FSF All Permissive License", "Expat License", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention)", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v2 or later)", "*No copyright* Public domain", "zlib/libpng license", "Boost Software License 1.0", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Apache License 2.0", "Unicode strict", "Khronos License", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention) GNU General Public License (v2)", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "GPL (v3 or later)", "*No copyright* GNU Free Documentation License (v1.1)", "Public domain". 7656 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/wxGTK/review- wxGTK/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib64/wx(wxGTK3-webview, wxBase3-devel), /usr/lib64/wx/config(wxBase3-devel), /usr/lib64/wx/include(wxBase3-devel) [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]: The spec file handles locales properly. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [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
[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 Neal Gompa changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(asa...@redhat.com ||) --- Comment #5 from Neal Gompa --- Adam, can you please regenerate the source RPM to match the spec file? fedora-review indicates that the two are quite different. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1815936] Review Request: reSIProcate - SIP and TURN stacks, with SIP proxy and TURN server implementations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815936 --- Comment #8 from Daniel Pocock --- I'd like to get your PYCONFIG change committed in Git but it doesn't allow push while the package is in the orphaned state. Is there any way around this? As an additional sanity check, can you please edit the line for asio-devel: -BuildRequires: asio-devel +BuildRequires: asio-devel >= 1.12.0 and then rpmbuild will verify that the right asio-devel version is really present. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1813292] Review Request: pkgtreediff - Package tree diff tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1813292
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/pkgtreediff/review-
pkgtreediff/licensecheck.txt
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %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,
[Bug 1813181] Review Request: python-jaraco-text - Module for text manipulation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1813181
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Source0:
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/j/%{pypi_name}/%{pypi_name}-%{version}.tar.gz
→ Source0:%{pypi_source}
- Please use a glob or it won't work for Python >= 3.10
%{python3_sitelib}/%{pypi_name}-%{version}-py*.egg-info
- License is MIT:
License:MIT
- Not installable:
DEBUG util.py:600: Error:
DEBUG util.py:600: Problem: conflicting requests
DEBUG util.py:600:- nothing provides python3dist(importlib-resources)
needed by python3-jaraco.text-3.2.0-1.fc33.noarch
DEBUG util.py:600:- nothing provides python3dist(pytest-black-multipy)
needed by python3-jaraco.text-3.2.0-1.fc33.noarch
DEBUG util.py:600:- nothing provides python3dist(pytest-checkdocs) >= 1.2.3
needed by python3-jaraco.text-3.2.0-1.fc33.noarch
DEBUG util.py:602: (try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages
or '--nobest' to use not only best candidate packages)
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", "Expat License". 21 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/python-jaraco-text/review-python-jaraco-
text/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/python3.8/site-
packages/jaraco(python3-jaraco-classes, python3-jaraco),
/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/jaraco/__pycache__(python3-jaraco-
classes, python3-jaraco)
[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 requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any
[Bug 1812980] Review Request: academic-admin - Admin tool for the Academic website builder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1812980
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Bump to 0.5.1
- Use a better name for your archive:
Source0:
https://github.com/sourcethemes/%{srcname}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
- Remove the shebang in %prep:
academic-admin.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/academic/cli.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3
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: "Expat License", "Unknown or generated". 5 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/academic-admin/review-academic-
admin/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from
[Bug 1812761] Review Request: imv - Image viewer for X11 and Wayland
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1812761 --- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/imv -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1812973] Review Request: python-bibtexparser - A BibTeX parsing library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1812973
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 ---
- License is BSD or LGPLv3
- Use a better name for your archive:
Source0:
https://github.com/sciunto-org/python-%{srcname}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
- Please generate the provided docs with Sphinx
- Remove shebangs in %prep:
python3-bibtexparser.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/bibtexparser/bibdatabase.py 644 /usr/bin/env
python
python3-bibtexparser.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/bibtexparser/bparser.py 644 /usr/bin/env
python
python3-bibtexparser.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/bibtexparser/bwriter.py 644 /usr/bin/env
python
python3-bibtexparser.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/bibtexparser/customization.py 644 /usr/bin/env
python
python3-bibtexparser.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/bibtexparser/latexenc.py 644 /usr/bin/env
python
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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised"
License", "*No copyright* GNU Affero General Public License, Version
3", "GPL (v3 or later)". 88 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-
bibtexparser/review-python-bibtexparser/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 4 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package
[Bug 1812761] Review Request: imv - Image viewer for X11 and Wayland
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1812761
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: 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", "*No copyright* Expat License", "Expat
License". 62 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/imv/review-
imv/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.
[-]: 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]:
[Bug 1816733] Review Request: rust-libslirp - High-level bindings & helper process for libslirp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816733 --- Comment #2 from Marc-Andre Lureau --- (In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #1) > Can you put a comment why you disable tests? Also, any reason why you use > --all-features? The rust tests require etherparse, but they are very incomplete. I am considering removing them. I added python/scapy tests, however, they have a number of dependencies (python, scapy, dbus..): https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/slirp/libslirp-rs/-/blob/master/Makefile. I can try to make that work on Fedora/koji, if it's necesary. I use --all-features, as otherwise the libslirp-helper binary is not built. 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 1812711] Review Request: calypso - Free and open-source CalDAV calendar server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1812711
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- /etc → %{_sysconfdir}
- /var/lib → %{_sharedstatedir}
- fix changelog entry:
calypso.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 2.0-0.1.20170717git7317d88
['2.0-0.1.20190429git7317d88.fc33', '2.0-0.1.20190429git7317d88']
Package approved. Please fix the aforementionned issues before import.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License (v3)", "GPL
(v3 or later)". 17 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/calypso/review-
calypso/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.
[!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: 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 3 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]: %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]: systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and
systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files.
Note: Systemd service file(s) in calypso
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names
[Bug 1816733] Review Request: rust-libslirp - High-level bindings & helper process for libslirp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816733 Igor Gnatenko changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Igor Gnatenko --- Can you put a comment why you disable tests? Also, any reason why you use --all-features? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1804538] Review Request: ghc-path-io - Interface to directory package for users of path
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1804538 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED Fixed In Version||ghc-path-io-1.4.2-1.fc33 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1817185] Review Request: ghc-rio-prettyprint - Pretty-printing for RIO
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1817185 --- Comment #1 from Jens Petersen --- Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=42698052 Needed for stack -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1817185] New: Review Request: ghc-rio-prettyprint - Pretty-printing for RIO
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1817185 Bug ID: 1817185 Summary: Review Request: ghc-rio-prettyprint - Pretty-printing for RIO Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: peter...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-rio-prettyprint/ghc-rio-prettyprint.spec SRPM URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-rio-prettyprint/ghc-rio-prettyprint-0.1.0.0-1.fc32.src.rpm Description: Combine RIO's log capabilities with pretty printing. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 #5 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/squeekboard -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1812369] Review Request: python-ssm-cache - AWS System Manager Parameter Store caching client for Python3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1812369
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Not need for this if you're including the entire directory afterwards:
%dir %{python3_sitelib}/tests
%dir %{python3_sitelib}/ssm_cache
%dir %{python3_sitelib}/ssm_cache-*.egg-info
- You missing the Python provide macro:
%package -n python3-%{srcname}
Summary:AWS System Manager Parameter Store caching client for Python
%{?python_provide:%python_provide python3-%{srcname}}
- You need to add python3-devel as a BR
- You need a newline here otherwise it won't run:
%if %{with tests}
%check
%{python3} setup.py test
%endif
- Tests then fail:
+ /usr/bin/python3 setup.py test
running test
WARNING: Testing via this command is deprecated and will be removed in a future
version. Users looking for a generic test entry point independent of test
runner are encouraged to use tox.
running egg_info
writing ssm_cache.egg-info/PKG-INFO
writing dependency_links to ssm_cache.egg-info/dependency_links.txt
writing requirements to ssm_cache.egg-info/requires.txt
writing top-level names to ssm_cache.egg-info/top_level.txt
reading manifest file 'ssm_cache.egg-info/SOURCES.txt'
writing manifest file 'ssm_cache.egg-info/SOURCES.txt'
running build_ext
tests (unittest.loader._FailedTest) ... ERROR
==
ERROR: tests (unittest.loader._FailedTest)
--
ImportError: Failed to import test module: tests
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/usr/lib64/python3.8/unittest/loader.py", line 470, in _find_test_path
package = self._get_module_from_name(name)
File "/usr/lib64/python3.8/unittest/loader.py", line 377, in
_get_module_from_name
__import__(name)
File "/builddir/build/BUILD/ssm-cache-python-2.9/tests/__init__.py", line 6,
in
from moto import mock_ssm, mock_secretsmanager
ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'moto'
--
Ran 1 test in 0.000s
FAILED (errors=1)
Test failed:
error: Test failed:
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
- Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/python3.8/site-
packages/ssm_cache
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/#_duplicate_files
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License". 71 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/python-ssm-cache/review-python-ssm-
cache/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/python3.8/site-
packages/tests(python3-netssh2, python3-pure-protobuf, minigalaxy,
python3-ipmi), /usr/lib/python3.8/site-
packages/tests/__pycache__(python3-netssh2, minigalaxy, python3-ipmi)
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: 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]:
[Bug 1816858] Review Request: kata-agent - kata containers guest agent
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816858 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-6cc0bb7f4f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-6cc0bb7f4f -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1812435] Review Request: python-beautifultable - Print ASCII tables for terminals
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1812435 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 --- - Tests are failing: + /usr/bin/python3 test.py ..F..F.F...F... == FAIL: test_ansi_ellipsis_mb (__main__.TableOperationsTestCase) -- Traceback (most recent call last): File "test.py", line 463, in test_ansi_ellipsis_mb self.assertEqual(string, table.get_string()) AssertionError: '+-+---+--+\n| \x1b[31mこれは非常に\x1b[0m.[43 chars]---+' != '+--+---+--+\n| \x1b[31mこれは非常に長い\x1b[0m\x[55 chars]---+' - +-+---+--+ ? --- + +--+---+--+ - | これは非常に... | 2 | girl | ? ^^^ + | これは非常に長い名前です | 2 | girl | ? ++^ - +-+---+--+? --- + +--+---+--+ == FAIL: test_ansi_strip_mb (__main__.TableOperationsTestCase) -- Traceback (most recent call last): File "test.py", line 483, in test_ansi_strip_mb self.assertEqual(string, table.get_string()) AssertionError: '+-+---+--+\n| \x1b[31mこれは非常に長\x1b[0m[42 chars]---+' != '+--+---+--+\n| \x1b[31mこれは非常に長い\x1b[0m\x[55 chars]---+' - +-+---+--+ ? --- + +--+---+--+ - | これは非常に長 | 2 | girl | ? ^ + | これは非常に長い名前です | 2 | girl | ? +^ - +-+---+--+? --- + +--+---+--+ == FAIL: test_ansi_wrap_mb (__main__.TableOperationsTestCase) -- Traceback (most recent call last): File "test.py", line 443, in test_ansi_wrap_mb self.assertEqual(string, table.get_string()) AssertionError: '+-+---+--+\n| \x1b[31mこれは非常に長\x1b[0m[99 chars]---+' != '+--+---+--+\n| \x1b[31mこれは非常に長い\x1b[0m\x[55 chars]---+' - +-+---+--+ ? --- + +--+---+--+ - | これは非常に長 | 2 | girl | ? ^ + | これは非常に長い名前です | 2 | girl | ? +^ - | い名前です| | | - +-+---+--+? --- + +--+---+--+ == FAIL: test_eastasian_characters (__main__.TableOperationsTestCase) -- Traceback (most recent call last): File "test.py", line 394, in test_eastasian_characters self.assertEqual(string, self.table.get_string()) AssertionError: '++--++\n|name| rank [417 chars]---+' != '+--+--++\n| name | rank | ge[392 chars]---+' Diff is 1112 characters long. Set self.maxDiff to None to see it. -- Ran 51 tests in 0.069s FAILED (failures=4) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1812294] Review Request: wicked - Network configuration infrastructure
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1812294
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 ---
- Are you sure these executable scripts should be marked as config(noreplace)?
wicked.x86_64: E: executable-marked-as-config-file
/etc/wicked/extensions/dispatch
wicked.x86_64: E: executable-marked-as-config-file
/etc/wicked/extensions/firewall
wicked.x86_64: E: executable-marked-as-config-file
/etc/wicked/extensions/hostname
wicked.x86_64: E: executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/wicked/extensions/ibft
wicked.x86_64: E: executable-marked-as-config-file
/etc/wicked/extensions/netconfig
Package is approved otherwise.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: 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",
"GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2)", "Public domain GPL (v2 or later) GNU
Lesser General Public License", "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later)",
"GPL (v2) (with incorrect FSF address)". 437 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/wicked/review-wicked/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.
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
Note: No (noreplace) in %config
/etc/dbus-1/system.d/org.opensuse.Network.conf %config
/etc/dbus-1/system.d/org.opensuse.Network.AUTO4.conf %config
/etc/dbus-1/system.d/org.opensuse.Network.DHCP4.conf %config
/etc/dbus-1/system.d/org.opensuse.Network.DHCP6.conf %config
/etc/dbus-1/system.d/org.opensuse.Network.Nanny.conf
[-]: 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.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 112640 bytes in 63 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
[Bug 1816457] Review Request: ocaml-mlmpfr - OCaml bindings for MPFR
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816457 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-f58331b1ac has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-f58331b1ac -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 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 1797362] Review Request: chordpro - Typesetting ChordPro songbooks (lyrics + chords)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1797362 --- Comment #11 from Robert-André Mauchin --- If it has the same functionalities, I think you can Obsoletes/Provides it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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] Review Request: vim-fugitive-pagure - Pagure support for vim-fugitive plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816872
Pavel Raiskup changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Pavel Raiskup ---
Thank you!
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.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package 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:
[-]: 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]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[!]: 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.
[?]: 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]: 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
[Bug 1812855] Review Request: php-pecl-rpminfo - RPM information
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1812855 Neal Gompa changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo? |needinfo?(fedora@famillecol ||let.com) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 Neal Gompa changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo? --- Comment #7 from Neal Gompa --- > # License: CC-BY-SA > # http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ I'm not sure this is an okay license for spec files. Creative Commons discourages the usage of CC licenses for code. The FPCA already defaults spec files to be licensed MIT[1], can you license it as something that makes more sense for code? [1]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Fedora_Project_Contributor_Agreement -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1796271] Review Request: ocaml-lablgtk3 - OCaml interface to gtk3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1796271 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-03-25 16:16:24 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-17573fc8ee 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 1806810] Review Request: php-webflo-drupal-finder - Provides a class to locate a Drupal installation in a given path
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1806810 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-03-25 16:15:37 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-2a6b18e09f 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 1816858] Review Request: kata-agent - kata containers guest agent
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816858 --- Comment #8 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/kata-agent -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 #6 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ocaml-mlmpfr -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 #5 from Jerry James --- Thank you for the review, Vasiliy! I appreciate it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 --- Comment #7 from Cole Robinson --- (In reply to Christophe de Dinechin from comment #5) > Reviewed the spec file rapidly. Looks good to me with two notes: > > 1) Do we need the -Sgit option for autosetup? > If using git format-patch output for .patch files in the repo, using -Sgit can be required in some instances IIRC, but I don't remember the details. We can probably get away with out it, it's just what I use by default. > 2) I would use the same DESTDIR for both make and make install. Often, > makefiles introduce hard-to-debug dependencies on make variables, we don't > want some mysterious failure down the line. Good point, I will add that before committing -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 --- Comment #6 from Cole Robinson --- (In reply to Fabiano Fidêncio from comment #3) > (In reply to Fabiano Fidêncio from comment #2) > > > So, comments made, may I ask your take on those? Is there some specific > > reason behind the dir structure chosen for kata-agent binary and systemd > > files? > > And, of course there is a specific reason for that, explicitly mentioned in > the spec file: > # Install the whole kata agent rooted in /usr/libexec > # The whole tree is copied into the appliance Yup, and it allows us to use kata-agent 'make' to install the files for us. If we wanted to use a different file hierarchy, we would need to manually reimplement the install process which isn't future proof. FWIW I did something similar for kata-osbuilder initially but it required some hacks there so this was my workaround -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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] Review Request: vim-fugitive-pagure - Pagure support for vim-fugitive plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816872 --- Comment #3 from Pavel Raiskup --- > Maybe we can file an RFE for tito to implement this feature? I thought it is matter of defining releaser from pre-existing library in tito - but yes, good idea if that isn't yet available. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 --- Comment #4 from Nicolas Mailhot --- *** Bug 1795974 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1795974] Review Request: intel-clear-sans-fonts - A sharp on-screen sans-serif font
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795974 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed||2020-03-25 13:46:34 --- Comment #6 from Nicolas Mailhot --- Ok, I believe we’ve all waited long enough *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1811295 *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-f056e46cfa has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-f056e46cfa -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 --- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/intel-clear-sans-fonts -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1787218] Review Request: python-aiopg - Postgres integration with asyncio
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1787218 --- Comment #5 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-aiopg -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 #24 from l...@mellanox.com --- >>> modprobe: FATAL: Module cuse not found in directory >>> /lib/modules/4.18.0-188.2.el8. bz1655714.v1.aarch64 Honggang, I was a little concerned about the "modprobe: FATAL: Module cuse not found" error message you mentioned earlier. Once you try it on hpe-mantis-01 (the external host machine) and see the same error messages, you could check the Linux configuration CONFIG_CUSE (see below) to see whether it's enabled or not. The user-space driver relies on it to create the /dev/rshimX/. It's usually enabled by default in centos, ubuntu, and default arm64 config. But I am not sure the kernel configuration you're using. CONFIG_FUSE_FS=m CONFIG_CUSE=m Thanks! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1814682] Review Request: rshim - rshim driver for Mellanox BlueField SoC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1814682 --- Comment #23 from Alaa Hleihel (Mellanox) --- Thanks! I see is pbunyan's setup :) * mellanox-bluefield-01.khw4.lab.eng.bos.redhat.com This is indeed the BlueFeild card, that we also refer to as the SmartNIC. The 'external' host that host this card is also an ARM64 system in this case (which doesn't matter much for us), it is: hpe-mantis-01.khw4.lab.eng.bos.redhat.com I used to connect to the SmartNIC console from the mantis host using this command: # minicom --baudrate 115200 --device /dev/ttyUSB0 Anyway, you already got a direct SSH connection to this SmartNIC (ssh to mellanox-bluefield-01.khw4.lab.eng.bos.redhat.com host). So to test out the new rshim user-space package, you need to login to the mantis host and install it there. But first, note that you need to remove the rshim kernel module that is currently installed and running there (RPM package rshim-1.16-0.ga7ad4e6_4.18.0_80.el8.aarch64.aarch64) [root@hpe-mantis-01 ~]# lsmod | grep rshim rshim_net 262144 0 rshim_pcie262144 0 rshim 262144 2 rshim_pcie,rshim_net [root@hpe-mantis-01 ~]# (In reply to Honggang LI from comment #22) > (In reply to Alaa Hleihel (Mellanox) from comment #20) > > > Connecting to the SmartNIC is possible via couple of interfaces: > > 1. minicom to the UART/USB interface (if cables are connected) > > 2. using rshim driver on the external host, we get the /dev/rshimX/console > > > Do you mean kernel space driver? or user space driver? Either one will provide this console. But we are moving away from the kernel implementation to the user-space one, so let's focus on the new user-space driver. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 #22 from Honggang LI --- (In reply to Alaa Hleihel (Mellanox) from comment #20) > Connecting to the SmartNIC is possible via couple of interfaces: > 1. minicom to the UART/USB interface (if cables are connected) > 2. using rshim driver on the external host, we get the /dev/rshimX/console Do you mean kernel space driver? or user space driver? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 #21 from Honggang LI --- (In reply to Alaa Hleihel (Mellanox) from comment #20) > (In reply to Honggang LI from comment #19) > > (In reply to Alaa Hleihel (Mellanox) from comment #18) > > > > > See also https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1655736#c7 > > > > on SmartNIC: > > # ip add add 192.168.100.2/24 dev tmfifo_net0 > > # ip -6 addr add 2001::192:168:100:2/112 dev tmfifo_net0 > > > > What does that mean "on SmartNIC"? How can I "login" the SmartNIC? > > I'm confused, weren't you trying to run rshim tool on the SmartNIC before? > > [root@mellanox-bluefield-01 p]# uname -r > What is "mellanox-bluefield-01" host? is this the SmartNIC (BlueField) or > the external host that is hosting the BlueField card? mellanox-bluefield-01.khw4.lab.eng.bos.redhat.com > > > How can I "login" the SmartNIC? > > Connecting to the SmartNIC is possible via couple of interfaces: > 1. minicom to the UART/USB interface (if cables are connected) > 2. using rshim driver on the external host, we get the /dev/rshimX/console > that we can connected to with screen or minicom tools. > > > Can I have access to this system? I sent the accout/pw via email. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1816872] Review Request: vim-fugitive-pagure - Pagure support for vim-fugitive plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816872 Jakub Kadlčík changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(jkadlcik@redhat.c | |om) | --- Comment #2 from Jakub Kadlčík --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/frostyx/vim-fugitive-pagure/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01319997-vim-fugitive-pagure/vim-fugitive-pagure.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/frostyx/vim-fugitive-pagure/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01319997-vim-fugitive-pagure/vim-fugitive-pagure-1.2-1.fc33.src.rpm > As you are the upstream, I'd propose to wrap formal release, You can see the releases here https://github.com/FrostyX/vim-fugitive-pagure/releases > and upload the tarball as static tar.gz file to github Maybe we can file an RFE for tito to implement this feature? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 #20 from Alaa Hleihel (Mellanox) --- (In reply to Honggang LI from comment #19) > (In reply to Alaa Hleihel (Mellanox) from comment #18) > > > See also https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1655736#c7 > > on SmartNIC: > # ip add add 192.168.100.2/24 dev tmfifo_net0 > # ip -6 addr add 2001::192:168:100:2/112 dev tmfifo_net0 > > What does that mean "on SmartNIC"? How can I "login" the SmartNIC? I'm confused, weren't you trying to run rshim tool on the SmartNIC before? > [root@mellanox-bluefield-01 p]# uname -r What is "mellanox-bluefield-01" host? is this the SmartNIC (BlueField) or the external host that is hosting the BlueField card? > How can I "login" the SmartNIC? Connecting to the SmartNIC is possible via couple of interfaces: 1. minicom to the UART/USB interface (if cables are connected) 2. using rshim driver on the external host, we get the /dev/rshimX/console that we can connected to with screen or minicom tools. Can I have access to this system? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 #19 from Honggang LI --- (In reply to Alaa Hleihel (Mellanox) from comment #18) > See also https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1655736#c7 on SmartNIC: # ip add add 192.168.100.2/24 dev tmfifo_net0 # ip -6 addr add 2001::192:168:100:2/112 dev tmfifo_net0 What does that mean "on SmartNIC"? How can I "login" the SmartNIC? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1816627] Review Request: vim-rhubarb - GitHub support for vim-fugitive plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816627 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Kadlčík --- > Vim has file triggers, and calls it itself. True, it works even without the %postun -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1809250] Review Request: python-sphobjinv - Sphinx objects.inv inspection/manipulation tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1809250 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-a5094eeb44 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-a5094eeb44 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-a5094eeb44 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 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 #10 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-398be58feb 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-2020-398be58feb \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-398be58feb 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 1809263] Review Request: wmbusmeters - Read the wireless mbus protocol to acquire utility meter readings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1809263 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-7761540107 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-2020-7761540107 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-7761540107 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 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|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-b24468740a 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-b24468740a \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-b24468740a 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 1815862] Review Request: pfetch - a pretty system information tool written in POSIX sh
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815862 Seth Flynn changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed||2020-03-25 11:49:22 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 Alaa Hleihel (Mellanox) changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(l...@mellanox.com | |) | --- Comment #18 from Alaa Hleihel (Mellanox) --- (In reply to Honggang LI from comment #17) > I tried to test rshim with an aarch64 machine. But I never got the > /dev/rsh*/* files. How can I test rshim? thank > > > [root@mellanox-bluefield-01 p]# rshim -f -l 4 > I see that you are trying to load the rshim driver on the BlueField system, which is wrong. - rshim user-space driver is used on the external host that hosts the BlueField card. - on the BlueField, we have a module named mlxbf_tmfifo that creates the corresponding interface that links to the rshim interface on the external host. See also https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1655736#c7 > [root@mellanox-bluefield-01 p]# uname -r > 4.18.0-188.2.el8.bz1655714.v1.aarch64 This kernel build has the mlxbf_tmfifo driver. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 Honggang LI changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(l...@mellanox.com ||) --- Comment #17 from Honggang LI --- I tried to test rshim with an aarch64 machine. But I never got the /dev/rsh*/* files. How can I test rshim? thank [root@mellanox-bluefield-01 p]# rshim -f -l 4 modprobe: FATAL: Module cuse not found in directory /lib/modules/4.18.0-188.2.el8.bz1655714.v1.aarch64 Probing pcie-03:00.2 create rshim pcie-03:00.2 BAR[0] unassigned, run 'lspci -v' ^Cepoll_wait failed; Interrupted system call ^Cepoll_wait failed; Interrupted system call ^Cepoll_wait failed; Interrupted system call ^Cepoll_wait failed; Interrupted system call ^Cepoll_wait failed; Interrupted system call ^Cepoll_wait failed; Interrupted system call ^Cepoll_wait failed; Interrupted system call ^C^Cepoll_wait failed; Interrupted system call ^Z [1]+ Stopped rshim -f -l 4 [root@mellanox-bluefield-01 p]# ps -ef | grep rshim root 112134877 2 07:10 pts/000:00:00 rshim -f -l 4 root 112394877 0 07:11 pts/000:00:00 grep --color=auto rshim [root@mellanox-bluefield-01 p]# kill -9 11213 [root@mellanox-bluefield-01 p]# [1]+ Killed rshim -f -l 4 [root@mellanox-bluefield-01 p]# [root@mellanox-bluefield-01 p]# lspci -v 00:00.0 PCI bridge: Mellanox Technologies MT416842 BlueField SoC Crypto enabled (prog-if 00 [Normal decode]) Flags: bus master, fast devsel, latency 0, IRQ 75 Bus: primary=00, secondary=01, subordinate=03, sec-latency=0 I/O behind bridge: -0fff [size=4K] Memory behind bridge: -001f [size=2M] Prefetchable memory behind bridge: 00e2-00e204ff [size=80M] Capabilities: [60] Express Root Port (Slot-), MSI 00 Capabilities: [e0] MSI: Enable+ Count=4/4 Maskable+ 64bit+ Capabilities: [40] Power Management version 3 Capabilities: [100] Advanced Error Reporting Capabilities: [1c0] #19 Capabilities: [230] Access Control Services Capabilities: [320] #27 Capabilities: [370] #26 Capabilities: [430] Downstream Port Containment Kernel driver in use: pcieport 01:00.0 PCI bridge: Mellanox Technologies MT416842 Family [BlueField SoC PCIe Bridge] (prog-if 00 [Normal decode]) Flags: bus master, fast devsel, latency 0, IRQ 78 Bus: primary=01, secondary=02, subordinate=03, sec-latency=0 I/O behind bridge: -0fff [size=4K] Memory behind bridge: -001f [size=2M] Prefetchable memory behind bridge: 00e2-00e204ff [size=80M] Capabilities: [60] Express Upstream Port, MSI 00 Capabilities: [e0] MSI: Enable+ Count=1/4 Maskable+ 64bit+ Capabilities: [40] Power Management version 3 Capabilities: [100] Advanced Error Reporting Capabilities: [1c0] #19 Capabilities: [320] #27 Capabilities: [370] #26 Kernel driver in use: pcieport 02:02.0 PCI bridge: Mellanox Technologies MT416842 Family [BlueField SoC PCIe Bridge] (prog-if 00 [Normal decode]) Flags: bus master, fast devsel, latency 0, IRQ 79 Bus: primary=02, secondary=03, subordinate=03, sec-latency=0 I/O behind bridge: -0fff [size=4K] Memory behind bridge: -001f [size=2M] Prefetchable memory behind bridge: 00e2-00e204ff [size=80M] Capabilities: [60] Express Downstream Port (Slot-), MSI 00 Capabilities: [e0] MSI: Enable+ Count=2/4 Maskable+ 64bit+ Capabilities: [40] Power Management version 3 Capabilities: [100] Advanced Error Reporting Capabilities: [1c0] #19 Capabilities: [230] Access Control Services Capabilities: [320] #27 Capabilities: [370] #26 Capabilities: [430] Downstream Port Containment Kernel driver in use: pcieport 03:00.0 Ethernet controller: Mellanox Technologies MT416842 BlueField integrated ConnectX-5 network controller Subsystem: Mellanox Technologies Device 0029 Flags: bus master, fast devsel, latency 0, IRQ 81 Memory at e2 (64-bit, prefetchable) [size=32M] Memory at e20400 (64-bit, prefetchable) [size=2M] Expansion ROM at e0 [disabled] [size=1M] Capabilities: [60] Express Endpoint, MSI 00 Capabilities: [48] Vital Product Data Capabilities: [9c] MSI-X: Enable+ Count=64 Masked- Capabilities: [c0] Vendor Specific Information: Len=18 Capabilities: [40] Power Management version 3 Capabilities: [100] Advanced Error Reporting Capabilities: [150] Alternative Routing-ID Interpretation (ARI)
[Bug 1809250] Review Request: python-sphobjinv - Sphinx objects.inv inspection/manipulation tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1809250 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|ON_QA --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-f725a47e7f has been pushed to the Fedora 31 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-f725a47e7f \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-f725a47e7f 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 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|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-7b83f9153d has been pushed to the Fedora 31 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-2020-7b83f9153d \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-7b83f9153d 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 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|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-d3a031fbcf has been pushed to the Fedora 31 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-d3a031fbcf \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-d3a031fbcf 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 1809263] Review Request: wmbusmeters - Read the wireless mbus protocol to acquire utility meter readings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1809263 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-462a2b0eba has been pushed to the Fedora 31 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-2020-462a2b0eba \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-462a2b0eba 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 1809261] Review Request: fixedptc - Fixed point math header only library for C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1809261 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-7c40dbb62d has been pushed to the Fedora 31 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-2020-7c40dbb62d \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-7c40dbb62d 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 1816858] Review Request: kata-agent - kata containers guest agent
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816858 --- Comment #5 from Christophe de Dinechin --- Reviewed the spec file rapidly. Looks good to me with two notes: 1) Do we need the -Sgit option for autosetup? 2) I would use the same DESTDIR for both make and make install. Often, makefiles introduce hard-to-debug dependencies on make variables, we don't want some mysterious failure down the line. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 #6 from Remi Collet --- Version 0.4.2 Spec URL: https://git.remirepo.net/cgit/rpms/php/pecl/php-pecl-rpminfo.git/plain/php-pecl-rpminfo.spec?h=fedora=985ead86de7237960570d4ad9fe56a0e5158cc75 SRPM URL: http://rpms.remirepo.net/SRPMS/php-pecl-rpminfo-0.4.2-1.fedora.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 1797362] Review Request: chordpro - Typesetting ChordPro songbooks (lyrics + chords)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1797362 --- Comment #10 from Johan Vromans --- Thanks for the approval. I still have a question about this package being successor to the chordii package. I am also maintainer of the chordii program and package and I want to deprecate it. Should I just add Obsoletes:chordii to the chordpro spec file? Should I add Provides:chordii even though it is not a plug compatible replacement? It is a full functional replacement. AFAICS this would be consistent with the discussion https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/645 and the packaging guidelines. Apologies if this is not the right place to ask. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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] Review Request: vim-fugitive-pagure - Pagure support for vim-fugitive plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816872
Pavel Raiskup changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(jkadlcik@redhat.c
||om)
--- Comment #1 from Pavel Raiskup ---
Source0 refers wrong URL:
https://github.com/tpope/vim-fugitive/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
As you are the upstream, I'd propose to wrap formal release, and
upload the tarball as static tar.gz file to github. It is additional
release work, but you can be 100% sure that the released tarball will
be byte-by-byte the same forever. (not a requirement though)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review 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
