[Bug 1774741] Review Request: bcftools - Tools for genomic variant calling and manipulating VCF/BCF files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1774741 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2020-f7b02980b0 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-f7b02980b0 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 1819148] Review Request: act - Automatic Component Toolkit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1819148 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-6e5fe0249d 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-2020-6e5fe0249d \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-6e5fe0249d 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 1830870] Review Request: wdisplays - GUI display configurator for wlroots compositors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1830870 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-f1bc3a1e88 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-f1bc3a1e88 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-f1bc3a1e88 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 1813648] Review Request: golang-github-saracen-walker - Walker is a faster, parallel version, of filepath.Walk
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1813648 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-ff5694dbd8 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-ff5694dbd8 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-ff5694dbd8 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 1818945] Review Request: lib3mf - Implementation of the 3D Manufacturing Format file standard
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1818945 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-6e5fe0249d 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-2020-6e5fe0249d \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-6e5fe0249d 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 1751160] Review Request: python-delegator-py - subprocess for Humans 2.0
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1751160 Lumír Balhar changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lbal...@redhat.com --- Comment #8 from Lumír Balhar --- Do we want to continue here or is it just another dependency bundled in pipenv? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1774741] Review Request: bcftools - Tools for genomic variant calling and manipulating VCF/BCF files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1774741 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2020-1de4190a52 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-1de4190a52 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 1832675] New: Review Request: lv2-mdala-plugins - A collection of LV2 plugins ported from the MDA VST plugins
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1832675 Bug ID: 1832675 Summary: Review Request: lv2-mdala-plugins - A collection of LV2 plugins ported from the MDA VST plugins Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: vasc...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Vascom/lv2-mdala-plugins/master/lv2-mdala-plugins.spec SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/8598/44178598/lv2-mdala-plugins-1.2.4-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: A collection of LV2 plugins including delay, tube distortion, compressor, LPF, HPF, phaser, reverb, and utilities, all featuring GUIs. It is retired package restore review request. Updated to latest version and made it build again. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1827427] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-argos - Create GNOME Shell extensions in seconds
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827427 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-05-07 03:09:50 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-74679c3b8a 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 1814682] Review Request: rshim - rshim driver for Mellanox BlueField SoC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1814682 --- Comment #64 from Honggang LI --- https://release-monitoring.org/project/98355/ Create this project for upstream release monitoring for rshim. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1832632] New: Review Request: python-authres - RFC 5451 Authentication-Results Headers generation and parsing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1832632 Bug ID: 1832632 Summary: Review Request: python-authres - RFC 5451 Authentication-Results Headers generation and parsing Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: stu...@gathman.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://gathman.org/linux/SPECS/authres.spec SRPM URL: https://gathman.org/linux/f31/src/python-authres-1.2.0-2.fc31.src.rpm Description: RFC 5451 Authentication-Results Headers generation and parsing for Python. Fedora Account System Username:sdgathman -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1795079] Review Request: golang-github-anacrolix-stm - Software Transactional Memory in Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795079 Hirotaka Wakabayashi changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Hirotaka Wakabayashi --- Hello Robert-André, Package approved. Please check the result. Sorry for my late response. Best Regards, Hirotaka Wakabayashi 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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/vagrant/FedoraReview/golang-github-anacrolix- stm/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com(golang-github-ianlancetaylor- cgosymbolizer-devel, golang-github-yuin-goldmark-highlighting-devel, golang-github-labbsr0x-goh-devel, golang-github-h2non-gock-devel, golang-github-remyoudompheng-bigfft-devel, golang-github-kagami-avif- devel, golang-github-macaron-binding-devel, golang-github-google- gofuzz-devel, golang-github-ugorji-devel, golang-github-nats-io- streaming-server-devel, golang-github-coreos-log-devel, golang-github- kisom-goutils-devel, golang-github-lib-pq-devel, golang-github- devigned-tab-devel, golang-github-stretchr-objx-devel, golang-github- quobyte-api-devel, golang-github-git-lfs-ntlm-devel, golang-github- influxdata-roaring-devel, golang-github-jaguilar-vt100-devel, golang- github-baiyubin-aliyun-sts-sdk-devel, golang-github-hashicorp-scada- client-devel, golang-github-zyedidia-tcell-devel, golang-github-cmd- devel, golang-github-mbndr-figlet4go-devel, golang-github-mgutz-ansi- devel, golang-github-franela-goreq-devel, golang-github-anacrolix- envpprof-devel, golang-github-t3rm1n4l-mega-devel, golang-github- googlecloudplatform-k8s-cloud-provider-devel, golang-github-google- tspi-devel, golang-github-malfunkt-iprange-devel, golang-github- jacobsa-crypto-devel, golang-github-pquerna-otp-devel, golang-github- mndrix-tap-devel, golang-github-gucumber-devel, golang-github-akamai- akamaiopen-edgegrid-devel, golang-github-cloudflare-metrics-devel, golang-github-hashicorp-uuid-devel, golang-github-rogpeppe-internal- devel, golang-github-samuel-zookeeper-devel, golang-github-bugsnag- devel, golang-github-cloudflare-backoff-devel, golang-github-google- renameio-devel, golang-github-knetic-govaluate-devel, golang-github- influxdata-httprouter-devel, golang-github-russellhaering-goxmldsig- devel, compat-golang-github-tomb-devel, golang-github-fernet-devel, golang-github-smartystreets-goconvey-devel, golang-github-lunixbochs- vtclean-devel, golang-github-mvo5-goconfigparser-devel, golang-github- pascaldekloe-goe-devel, golang-github-restic-chunker-devel, golang- github-mreiferson-httpclient-devel, golang-github-google-querystring- devel, golang-github-inconshreveable-vhost-devel, golang-github- jwilder-encoding-devel, golang-github-kr-text-devel, golang-github- influxdata-line-protocol-devel, golang-github-apache-thrift-devel, golang-github-mistifyio-zfs-devel, golang-github-hashicorp-rootcerts- devel, golang-github-godoctor-devel, golang-github-zmap-zlint-devel, golang-github-teris-io-shortid-devel, golang-github-aliyun-alibaba- cloud-sdk-devel, golang-github-pkg-browser-devel, golang-github- boltdb-bolt-devel, golang-github-jackc-fake-devel, golang-github- smartystreets-aws-auth-devel, golang-github-linkedin-goavro-devel, golang-github-macaron-gzip-devel, golang-github-pkg-term-devel, golang-github-jmhodges-clock-devel, golang-github-jstemmer-gotags- devel, golang-github-nwidger-jsoncolor-devel, golang-github-shopify- toxiproxy-devel, golang-github-asaskevich-govalidator-devel, golang- github-containerd-cri-devel, golang-github-thejerf-suture-devel, golang-github-rogpeppe-charset-devel, golang-github-dchest-safefile- devel, golang-github-naoina-toml-devel, golang-github-ryszard- goskiplist-devel, golang-github-groupcache-devel, golang-github-azure- pipeline-devel, golang-github-dpotapov-spnego-devel, golang-github- logrusorgru-aurora-devel, golang-github-clbanning-x2j-devel, golang-
[Bug 1822509] Review Request: lavalauncher - a simple launcher for Wayland
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822509 --- Comment #7 from Lyes Saadi --- The notifier worked :P! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1795079] Review Request: golang-github-anacrolix-stm - Software Transactional Memory in Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795079 --- Comment #2 from Hirotaka Wakabayashi --- A successful Koji scratch build. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=44172011 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1832623] New: Review Request: psi-notify -
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1832623 Bug ID: 1832623 Summary: Review Request: psi-notify - Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mic...@michel-slm.name QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/utils/psi-notify.spec SRPM URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/utils/psi-notify-1.0.1-1.fc32.src.rpm Description: psi-notify is a minimal unprivileged notifier for system-wide resource pressure using PSI. This can help you to identify misbehaving applications on your machine before they start to severely impact system responsiveness, in a way which MemAvailable or other metrics cannot. Fedora Account System Username: salimma -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1832623] Review Request: psi-notify - Alert when your machine is becoming over-saturated
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1832623 Michel Alexandre Salim changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: psi-notify |Review Request: psi-notify |- |- Alert when your machine ||is becoming over-saturated Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1830870] Review Request: wdisplays - GUI display configurator for wlroots compositors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1830870 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-f1bc3a1e88 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-f1bc3a1e88 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1832562] Review Request: tpcclib-v0.7.5 - Command line tools for processing and analyzing data collected in Turku PET Centre (TPC)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1832562 Purusharth S changed: What|Removed |Added Comment|0 |updated --- Comment #0 has been edited --- This is my First Package and I am being sposored by ankursinha (FranciscoD) Spec URL: https://pagure.io/tpcclib/blob/version-0.7.5/f/tpcclib.spec SRPM URL: https://pagure.io/tpcclib/blob/version-0.7.5/f/tpcclib-0.7.5-1.fc31.src.rpm Description: Tpcclib project is to develop and maintain command-line tools to processing and analyzing data collected in Turku PET Centre (TPC), University of Turku. The tpcclib project is released under GNU GPLv3. Koji Build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=44162821 Fedora Account System Username:purusharths -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1830870] Review Request: wdisplays - GUI display configurator for wlroots compositors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1830870 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-fd6bac8065 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-fd6bac8065 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1822509] Review Request: lavalauncher - a simple launcher for Wayland
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822509 --- Comment #6 from Bob Hepple --- Thanks again Lyes! Let's see if the notifier works this time! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1828079] Review Request: jneuroml-core - The NeuroML 2 Schema and ComponentType definitions in LEMS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1828079
--- Comment #2 from Jerry James ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
- Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/java/jneuroml-core
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/#_duplicate_files
This is due to this line in %files:
%dir %{_javadir}/%{name}
Remove that. It isn't needed.
- The file docs/assets/css/bootstrap.css, which has license ASL 2.0, is
included
in the doc subpackage. I think the doc subpackage will need to add
License: LGPLv3 and ASL 2.0
- Let me get this straight. Upstream released NMLv2.0, which looks like a
package named NML (or perhaps NeuroML2, the name of the git repository),
version 2.0. Yet somehow it is really jneuroml-core version 1.6.1. Okay,
I see that pom.xml seems to say so. That's pretty strange, not to mention
confusing.
- Take a look at the hidden-file-or-dir warnings from rpmlint. Are those files
really necessary?
= 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", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General
Public License", "Apache License 2.0". 177 files have unknown license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: 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
Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
= 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
[Bug 1832610] Review Request: python-pcodedmp - VBA p-code disassembler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1832610 Robert Scheck changed: What|Removed |Added CC||re...@seznam.cz Blocks||1779427, 1811089 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1779427 [Bug 1779427] python-oletools-0.55 is available https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811089 [Bug 1811089] python3-oletools is not installable in F32 and 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 1832610] New: Review Request: python-pcodedmp - VBA p-code disassembler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1832610 Bug ID: 1832610 Summary: Review Request: python-pcodedmp - VBA p-code disassembler Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: redhat-bugzi...@linuxnetz.de QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/python-pcodedmp.spec SRPM URL: https://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/python-pcodedmp-1.2.6-1.src.rpm Description: Macros written in VBA (Visual Basic for Applications; the macro programming language used in Microsoft Office) exist in three different executable forms, each of which can be what is actually executed at run time, depending on the circumstances: Source code, p-code and execodes. Since most of the time it is the p-code that determines what exactly a macro would do (even if neither source code, nor execodes are present), pcodedmp is a Python library and command line tool to display it. Fedora Account System Username: robert -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1827957] Review Request: python-sciunit - Framework for test-driven validation of scientific models
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827957
--- Comment #2 from Jerry James ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= Issues =
- The "%{?python_provide:%python_provide python3-%{pypi_name}}" line is not
necessary when using %python_enable_dependency_generator. Indeed, the
Provides for the python3-sciunit package contain duplicates:
python-sciunit = 0.2.2-1.fc33
python-sciunit = 0.2.2-1.fc33
python3-sciunit = 0.2.2-1.fc33
python3.8dist(sciunit) = 0.2.2
python38-sciunit = 0.2.2-1.fc33
python38-sciunit = 0.2.2-1.fc33
python3dist(sciunit) = 0.2.2
- The Summary for the doc subpackage is the same as for the main package.
Is that intentional? See the description-shorter-than-summary warning from
rpmlint.
= 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". 64 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/jamesjer/1827957-python-sciunit/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: 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
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]:
[Bug 1832562] Review Request: tpcclib-v0.7.5 - Command line tools for processing and analyzing data collected in Turku PET Centre (TPC)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1832562 Purusharth S changed: What|Removed |Added Comment|0 |updated --- Comment #0 has been edited --- This is my First Package and I am being sposored by ankursinha (FranciscoD) Spec URL: https://pagure.io/tpcclib/blob/version-0.7.5/f/tpcclib.spec SRPM URL: https://pagure.io/tpcclib/blob/version-0.7.5/f/-overall-path-0.7.5.patch Description: Tpcclib project is to develop and maintain command-line tools to processing and analyzing data collected in Turku PET Centre (TPC), University of Turku. The tpcclib project is released under GNU GPLv3. Koji Build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=44162821 Fedora Account System Username:purusharths -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1824848] Review Request: jc - JSONifies the output of dozens of commands
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1824848 --- Comment #13 from Kelly Brazil --- Thanks for the suggestions. I updated the spec here: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/kellyjonbrazil/jc-packaging/master/rpmbuild/SPEC/python-jc.spec -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1816733] Review Request: rust-libslirp - High-level bindings & helper process for libslirp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816733 Marc-Andre Lureau changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(i.gnatenko.brain@ ||gmail.com) --- Comment #7 from Marc-Andre Lureau --- I managed to get it to build in rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1504659 What's the process now to get it in 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 1814682] Review Request: rshim - rshim driver for Mellanox BlueField SoC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1814682 Michal Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-05-06 20:30:50 --- Comment #63 from Michal Schmidt --- The package is successfully built and tagged "f33". It will be installable with dnf in Fedora Rawhide once a daily compose of Rawhide finishes and propagates to mirrors. $ koji latest-pkg f33 rshim Build Tag Built by rshim-2.0.4-1.fc33f33 lsun You may want to push rshim also as an update to Fedora 32, the current stable release. You'd do that by creating the f32 branch in Fedora dist-git: fedpkg request-branch --repo rshim f32 I don't remember if the new branch would be created empty, or as a fork of master. You can do a git merge or cherry-pick between branches. Then you can do a build while having the f32 branch checked out: fedpkg build Then you can publish your build as a package update for Fedora 32 using Bodhi (read https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bodhi). Getting rshim into RHEL is out of scope for this Fedora review (unless you're interested in EPEL, https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL). We should continue in RHEL bug 1744737. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1832562] New: Review Request: tpcclib-v0.7.5 - Command line tools for processing and analyzing data collected in Turku PET Centre (TPC)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1832562 Bug ID: 1832562 Summary: Review Request: tpcclib-v0.7.5 - Command line tools for processing and analyzing data collected in Turku PET Centre (TPC) Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: purusharth.saxe...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora This is my First Package and I am being sposored by ankursinha (FranciscoD) Spec URL: https://pagure.io/tpcclib/blob/version-0.7.5/f/tpcclib.spec SRPM URL: https://pagure.io/tpcclib/blob/version-0.7.5/f/-overall-path-0.7.5.patch Description: Tpcclib project is to develop and maintain command-line tools to processing and analyzing data collected in Turku PET Centre (TPC), University of Turku. The tpcclib project is released under GNU GPLv3. Koji Build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=44162821 Fedora Account System Username:purusharths -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1824848] Review Request: jc - JSONifies the output of dozens of commands
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1824848
--- Comment #12 from Artur Iwicki ---
>https://github.com/kellyjonbrazil/jc-packaging/blob/master/rpmbuild/SPEC/python-jc.spec
This points to a syntax-highlighted HTML rendition of the spec. Please use "raw
file" links.
>%global desc JSON CLI output utility. JC is used to JSONify the output of many
>standard linux \
>CLI tools and file types for easier parsing in scripts.
This macro is later used for the %description and the first line is 81
characters long. Either remove the space at the end ("linux\") so it's exactly
80 characters, or move a word or two to the second line.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_summary_and_description
>Name: python-%{pypi_name}
jc is a Python application, not a library. As such, it's not necessary to use
"python-jc" for the name; it can be just "jc".
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_naming
The rest looks good to me. I'll do a proper review in the upcoming days.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1774741] Review Request: bcftools - Tools for genomic variant calling and manipulating VCF/BCF files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1774741 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2020-1de4190a52 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-1de4190a52 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1774741] Review Request: bcftools - Tools for genomic variant calling and manipulating VCF/BCF files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1774741 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2020-f7b02980b0 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-f7b02980b0 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1441843] Review Request: linchpin - Ansible based multicloud orchestrator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1441843 --- Comment #38 from Jonathan Dieter --- I'd really like to see this move forward, but I can't even install it right now, in either Rawhide or F32: sudo /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 33 --setopt=deltarpm=False --allowerasing --disableplugin=local --disableplugin=spacewalk install /home/jonathan/Documents/programming/fedora/1441843-linchpin/results/linchpin-2.0.0-1.fc33.noarch.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts [sudo] password for jonathan: No matches found for the following disable plugin patterns: local, spacewalk fedora 11 MB/s | 72 MB 00:06 Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:20 ago on Wed 06 May 2020 08:57:15 PM IST. Error: Problem: conflicting requests - nothing provides (python3.8dist(ansible) <= 2.9 with python3.8dist(ansible) >= 2.7.1) needed by linchpin-2.0.0-1.fc33.noarch - nothing provides (python3.8dist(urllib3) < 1.25 with python3.8dist(urllib3) >= 1.23) needed by linchpin-2.0.0-1.fc33.noarch - nothing provides python3.8dist(ipaddress) >= 1.0.17 needed by linchpin-2.0.0-1.fc33.noarch - nothing provides python3.8dist(openstacksdk) >= 0.37 needed by linchpin-2.0.0-1.fc33.noarch - nothing provides python3.8dist(pyzmq) = 18.1.1 needed by linchpin-2.0.0-1.fc33.noarch - nothing provides python3.8dist(tqdm) = 4.36.1 needed by linchpin-2.0.0-1.fc33.noarch sudo dnf install /home/jonathan/Documents/programming/fedora/1441843-linchpin-32/results/linchpin-2.0.0-1.fc32.noarch.rpm Error: Problem: conflicting requests - nothing provides (python3.8dist(ansible) <= 2.9 with python3.8dist(ansible) >= 2.7.1) needed by linchpin-2.0.0-1.fc32.noarch - nothing provides (python3.8dist(urllib3) >= 1.23 with python3.8dist(urllib3) < 1.25) needed by linchpin-2.0.0-1.fc32.noarch - nothing provides python3.8dist(gitdb) >= 0.6.4 needed by linchpin-2.0.0-1.fc32.noarch - nothing provides python3.8dist(ipaddress) >= 1.0.17 needed by linchpin-2.0.0-1.fc32.noarch - nothing provides python3.8dist(openstacksdk) >= 0.37 needed by linchpin-2.0.0-1.fc32.noarch - nothing provides python3.8dist(pyzmq) = 18.1.1 needed by linchpin-2.0.0-1.fc32.noarch - nothing provides python3.8dist(tqdm) = 4.36.1 needed by linchpin-2.0.0-1.fc32.noarch (try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1828079] Review Request: jneuroml-core - The NeuroML 2 Schema and ComponentType definitions in LEMS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1828079 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||loganje...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|loganje...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Jerry James --- I will take this 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 1827957] Review Request: python-sciunit - Framework for test-driven validation of scientific models
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827957 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||loganje...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|loganje...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Jerry James --- I will take this 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 1814682] Review Request: rshim - rshim driver for Mellanox BlueField SoC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1814682 --- Comment #62 from l...@mellanox.com --- Michal / Honggang, This is my first Fedora package. Any advice what the next steps would be? Such as how to get it into fedora 33 or Redhat, how to make it visible to 'dnf' install, etc. 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 1831981] Review Request: xdg-desktop-portal-wlr - xdg-desktop-portal backend for wlroots
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1831981 --- Comment #8 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/xdg-desktop-portal-wlr -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1831981] Review Request: xdg-desktop-portal-wlr - xdg-desktop-portal backend for wlroots
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1831981 --- Comment #7 from Aleksei Bavshin --- BTW, I'll be adding @sway-sig as comaintainer for this package (and kanshi, I guess), but I don't think it's suitable for the sway module. Won't build for f31 anyways due to outdated pipewire. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1831981] Review Request: xdg-desktop-portal-wlr - xdg-desktop-portal backend for wlroots
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1831981 --- Comment #6 from Aleksei Bavshin --- Thank you for the review! > - Could not download Source2: > https://emersion.fr/.well-known/openpgpkey/hu/dj3498u4hyyarh35rkjfnghbjxug6b19#/gpgkey-0FDE7BE0E88F5E48.gpg >See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ >The URL does not work because it does not save the key as .gpg file. Not a > blocker. The URL contains Simon's public key in gpg binary format, and it's referenced from https://emersion.fr. spectool -g works with that. I'm just renaming it according to the gpgverify section[1] of the guidelines (and of course I read that section and aware that gpg key goes into the git repo instead of lookaside cache). > - xdg-desktop-portal-wlr.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C > xdg-desktop-portal backend for wlroots That's the case where interface/API name supposed to be preserved as is. https://github.com/flatpak/xdg-desktop-portal uses `xdg-desktop-portal` in lowercase, as well as all other references I've seen. [1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_source_file_verification -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1822971] Review Request: notcurses - character graphics and TUI library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822971 --- Comment #49 from David Cantrell --- The ticket is opened for my account to move to sponsor and per policy should be resolved by the end of the week. If you want to follow that ticket: https://pagure.io/packager-sponsors/issue/420 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1832392] Review Request: python-typeguard - Run-time type checker for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1832392 --- Comment #2 from Christopher Brown --- This is a requirement for the latest python-tenacity versions: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/9973/44159973/build.log -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1831981] Review Request: xdg-desktop-portal-wlr - xdg-desktop-portal backend for wlroots
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1831981
Till Hofmann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Till Hofmann ---
Approved!
Please do have a look at the two minor issues listed below.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Could not download Source2:
https://emersion.fr/.well-known/openpgpkey/hu/dj3498u4hyyarh35rkjfnghbjxug6b19#/gpgkey-0FDE7BE0E88F5E48.gpg
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/
The URL does not work because it does not save the key as .gpg file. Not a
blocker.
- xdg-desktop-portal-wlr.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C
xdg-desktop-portal backend for wlroots
= 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", "Expat License". 28 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/thofmann/fedora/reviews/review-xdg-desktop-portal-
wlr/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/dbus-1/services,
/usr/share/dbus-1
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[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.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 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 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:
[!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
Note: Could not download Source2: https://emersion.fr/.well-
[Bug 1832392] Review Request:python-typeguard - Run-time type checker for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1832392 --- Comment #1 from Christopher Brown --- Copr repo: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/snecker/python-typeguard Github Spec URL for copr repo: https://github.com/snecklifter/python-typeguard -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1832392] New: Review Request:python-typeguard - Run-time type checker for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1832392 Bug ID: 1832392 Summary: Review Request:python-typeguard - Run-time type checker for Python Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: chris.br...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/snecker/python-typeguard/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01369129-python-typeguard/python-typeguard.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/snecker/python-typeguard/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01369129-python-typeguard/python-typeguard-2.7.1-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: Run-time type checker for Python Fedora Account System Username:snecker -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1818670] Review Request: sensu-go - Sensu Go Open Source (Monitoring Program)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1818670 --- Comment #6 from Devin Acosta --- Dominik, I will see what I can do to try to adhere to the Go way of doing things, however I am not a GoLang developer by any means. The Go Binary that I am building requires 79 additional Go Language dependencies, so it seems like a huge task for me to have to maintain 79 additional packages in addition to the one that I am trying to get added to EPEL 7/EPEL 8. For Example this is all the required GoLang dependencies as of right now. So seems like the Fedora way would say that I have to create 79 packages for each one of these requirements? I understand why bundling everything with the package can be not optimal but seems like a really steep hill to try to have to maintain 79 other packages in addition. Maybe why no one YET has tried to get Sensu Go into EPEL because of the requirements. Thoughts? github.com/AlecAivazis/survey v1.4.1 github.com/Azure/go-ansiterm v0.0.0-20170929234023-d6e3b3328b78 // indirect github.com/NYTimes/gziphandler v0.0.0-20180227021810-5032c8878b9d github.com/StackExchange/wmi v0.0.0-20180725035823-b12b22c5341f // indirect github.com/ash2k/stager v0.0.0-20170622123058-6e9c7b0eacd4 // indirect github.com/atlassian/gostatsd v0.0.0-20180514010436-af796620006e github.com/coreos/bbolt v1.3.3 // indirect github.com/coreos/etcd v3.3.17+incompatible github.com/coreos/go-semver v0.3.0 // indirect github.com/coreos/go-systemd v0.0.0-20190719114852-fd7a80b32e1f // indirect github.com/coreos/pkg v0.0.0-20180928190104-399ea9e2e55f github.com/dave/jennifer v0.0.0-20171207062344-d8bdbdbee4e1 github.com/dgrijalva/jwt-go v3.2.0+incompatible github.com/docker/docker v0.0.0-20180409082103-cbde00b44273 github.com/echlebek/crock v1.0.1 github.com/echlebek/timeproxy v1.0.0 github.com/emicklei/proto v1.1.0 github.com/frankban/quicktest v1.7.2 // indirect github.com/ghodss/yaml v1.0.0 github.com/go-ole/go-ole v0.0.0-20170209151332-de8695c8edbf // indirect github.com/go-resty/resty/v2 v2.1.0 github.com/gogo/protobuf v1.3.1 github.com/golang/groupcache v0.0.0-20191002201903-404acd9df4cc // indirect github.com/golang/protobuf v1.3.2 github.com/google/uuid v1.1.1 github.com/gorilla/context v0.0.0-20160226214623-1ea25387ff6f // indirect github.com/gorilla/mux v1.6.2 github.com/gorilla/websocket v1.4.1 github.com/gotestyourself/gotestyourself v2.2.0+incompatible // indirect github.com/graph-gophers/dataloader v0.0.0-20180104184831-78139374585c github.com/graphql-go/graphql v0.7.9-0.20191125031726-2e2b648ecbe4 github.com/grpc-ecosystem/go-grpc-middleware v1.1.0 // indirect github.com/grpc-ecosystem/grpc-gateway v1.11.3 // indirect github.com/gxed/GoEndian v0.0.0-20160916112711-0f5c6873267e // indirect github.com/gxed/eventfd v0.0.0-20160916113412-80a92cca79a8 // indirect github.com/hashicorp/go-version v1.2.0 github.com/ipfs/go-log v0.0.0-2018041604-7ecd3df29a4a // indirect github.com/jbenet/go-reuseport v0.0.0-20180416043609-15a1cd37f050 // indirect github.com/json-iterator/go v1.1.7 github.com/konsorten/go-windows-terminal-sequences v1.0.2 // indirect github.com/libp2p/go-reuseport v0.0.0-20180416043609-15a1cd37f050 // indirect github.com/libp2p/go-sockaddr v0.0.0-20180329070516-f3e9f73a53d1 // indirect github.com/mattn/go-colorable v0.0.9 // indirect github.com/mattn/go-isatty v0.0.2 // indirect github.com/mattn/go-runewidth v0.0.2 // indirect github.com/mgutz/ansi v0.0.0-20170206155736-9520e82c474b github.com/mholt/archiver/v3 v3.3.1-0.20191129193105-44285f7ed244 github.com/mitchellh/go-homedir v1.1.0 github.com/mitchellh/mapstructure v1.1.2 github.com/olekukonko/tablewriter v0.0.0-20180506121414-d4647c9c7a84 github.com/prometheus/client_golang v1.2.0 github.com/prometheus/client_model v0.0.0-20190812154241-14fe0d1b01d4 github.com/robertkrimen/otto v0.0.0-20180617131154-15f95af6e78d github.com/robfig/cron/v3 v3.0.0 github.com/sensu/lasr v1.2.1 github.com/shirou/gopsutil v0.0.0-20180801053943-8048a2e9c577 github.com/shirou/w32 v0.0.0-20160930032740-bb4de0191aa4 // indirect github.com/sirupsen/logrus v1.4.2 github.com/spf13/cobra v0.0.5 github.com/spf13/pflag v1.0.5 github.com/spf13/viper v1.4.0 github.com/stretchr/testify v1.4.0 github.com/whyrusleeping/go-logging v0.0.0-20170515211332-0457bb6b88fc // indirect github.com/willf/pad v0.0.0-20160331131008-b3d780601022 go.etcd.io/bbolt v1.3.2 go.uber.org/multierr v1.2.0 // indirect golang.org/x/crypto v0.0.0-20191011191535-87dc89f01550 golang.org/x/net v0.0.0-20191014212845-da9a3fd4c582 golang.org/x/sys v0.0.0-20191113165036-4c7a9d0fe056 golang.org/x/text v0.3.2 // indirect golang.org/x/time v0.0.0-20190921001708-c4c64cad1fd0 google.golang.org/genproto v0.0.0-20191009194640-548a555dbc03 // indirect google.golang.org/grpc v1.24.0 gopkg.in/AlecAivazis/survey.v1 v1.4.0 // indirect gopkg.in/h2non/filetype.v1 v1.0.3 gopkg.in/sourcemap.v1 v1.0.5 // indirect gopkg.in/yaml.v2 v2.2.4 gotest.tools v2.2.0+incompatible // indirect sigs.k8s.io/yaml v1.1.0 -- You are
[Bug 1830322] Review Request: gap-pkg-ferret - Backtracking search in permutation groups
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1830322 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||sanjay.an...@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1830323] Review Request: gap-pkg-images - Minimal and canonical images in permutation groups
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1830323 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||sanjay.an...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|sanjay.an...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1814682] Review Request: rshim - rshim driver for Mellanox BlueField SoC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1814682 --- Comment #61 from l...@mellanox.com --- Thanks a lot for the help!!! The changes have been pushed. The 'fedpkg build' also seem passed. https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rshim $ fedpkg import ~/rshim-2.0.4-1.fc31.src.rpm $ git commit -m "Initial import (#1814682)." $ git push $ fedpkg build https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=44157911 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1831981] Review Request: xdg-desktop-portal-wlr - xdg-desktop-portal backend for wlroots
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1831981
--- Comment #4 from Aleksei Bavshin ---
I'm just being extra cautious because I feel that the constraint enforced on
source package should apply to the binary package as well.
Also, the bug in pipewire 0.3.2 is really subtle and I want to avoid bug
reports like 'I run screen sharing a couple of times and it's no longer working
and restarting xdg-desktop-portal-* doesn't help at all'.
> In any case, it should probably be
> Requires: pipewire-libs%{?_isa} >= 0.3.4
...right. I should've used pipewire-libs from the beginning. Thanks!
Spec URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/alebastr/sway-extras/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01369017-xdg-desktop-portal-wlr/xdg-desktop-portal-wlr.spec
SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/alebastr/sway-extras/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01369017-xdg-desktop-portal-wlr/xdg-desktop-portal-wlr-0.1.0-0.1.fc33.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 1824848] Review Request: jc - JSONifies the output of dozens of commands
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1824848 --- Comment #11 from Kelly Brazil --- Just checking if there is anything more I need to do here. 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 810049] Review Request: netbeans-ide - Netbeans Integrated Development Environment (IDE)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810049 Preeti Walia changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pwaliac...@gmail.com --- Comment #115 from Preeti Walia --- Preeti Walia Bangalore escorts agency all independent call girls Bangalore are those who living life enjoy with a completely changed method. https://www.preetiwalia.com/bangalore-escorts.php https://www.preetiwalia.com/bangalore-escorts-services.php https://www.preetiwalia.com/about-independent-bangalore-escorts.php https://www.preetiwalia.com/independent-call-girls-in-bangalore.php https://www.preetiwalia.com/call-girls-in-vijay-nagar.php https://www.preetiwalia.com/call-girls-in-kr-puram.php https://www.preetiwalia.com/call-girls-in-koramangala.php https://www.preetiwalia.com/call-girls-in-shivaji-nagar.php https://www.preetiwalia.com/call-girls-in-mg-road.php https://www.preetiwalia.com/call-girls-in-marathahalli.php https://www.preetiwalia.com/call-girls-in-majestic.php https://www.preetiwalia.com/call-girls-in-mahadevapura.php https://www.preetiwalia.com/call-girls-in-jp-nagar.php https://www.preetiwalia.com/call-girls-in-indiranagar.php https://www.preetiwalia.com/call-girls-in-hsr-layout.php -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-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 #60 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rshim -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1830870] Review Request: wdisplays - GUI display configurator for wlroots compositors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1830870 --- Comment #9 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/wdisplays -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-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 chedi toueiti changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-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 #11 from chedi toueiti ---
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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 1 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/chedi/Devel/Projects/Fedora/golang-github-google-
starlark/review-golang-github-google-starlark/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package 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.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in golang-
starlark-devel
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[ ]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[ ]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: 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,
[Bug 810049] Review Request: netbeans-ide - Netbeans Integrated Development Environment (IDE)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810049 Payal singh changed: What|Removed |Added CC||payalsinghc...@gmail.com --- Comment #114 from Payal singh --- We are providing best Bangalore escorts services, escorts in Bangalore, college girls in Bangalore, call girls in Bangalore available 24 hours 100% full satisfaction and privacy. https://www.payalsingh.com/bangalore-escorts-agency.php https://www.payalsingh.com/services.php https://www.payalsingh.com/independent-call-girls-in-bangalore.php https://www.payalsingh.com/jp-nagar-escorts.php https://www.payalsingh.com/vijay-nagar-escorts.php https://www.payalsingh.com/escorts-in-kr-puram.php https://www.payalsingh.com/koramangala-escorts.php https://www.payalsingh.com/shivaji-nagar-escorts.php https://www.payalsingh.com/mg-road-escorts.php https://www.payalsingh.com/marathahalli-escorts.php https://www.payalsingh.com/majestic-bangalore-escorts.php https://www.payalsingh.com/hsr-layout-bangalore-escorts.php https://www.payalsingh.com/indiranagar-escorts.php https://www.payalsingh.com/rajarajeshwari-nagar-bangalore-escorts.php -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1831981] Review Request: xdg-desktop-portal-wlr - xdg-desktop-portal backend for wlroots
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1831981
--- Comment #3 from Till Hofmann ---
(In reply to Aleksei Bavshin from comment #2)
> (In reply to Till Hofmann from comment #1)
> > >BuildRequires: pkgconfig(libpipewire-0.3) >= 0.3.4
> > This would avoid the explicit (and redundant) dependency on pipewire.
>
> BR does not directly affect binary package Requires, thus the explicit
> versioned dependency on pipewire is still necessary. I can change both
> dependencies to 0.3.4; it'll be easier to track and 0.3.4 is just 1 karma
> point from stable f32-updates.
>
I still find this unnecessary, as this only becomes a problem if someone
installs this package on a system that's not up-to-date, or if the user
actively downgrades pipewire.
In any case, it should probably be
Requires: pipewire-libs%{?_isa} >= 0.3.4
Unless /usr/bin/pipewire is actually called?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1831981] Review Request: xdg-desktop-portal-wlr - xdg-desktop-portal backend for wlroots
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1831981 --- Comment #2 from Aleksei Bavshin --- (In reply to Till Hofmann from comment #1) > >BuildRequires: pkgconfig(libpipewire-0.3) >= 0.3.4 > This would avoid the explicit (and redundant) dependency on pipewire. BR does not directly affect binary package Requires, thus the explicit versioned dependency on pipewire is still necessary. I can change both dependencies to 0.3.4; it'll be easier to track and 0.3.4 is just 1 karma point from stable f32-updates. % rpm -qRp results_xdg-desktop-portal-wlr/0.1.0/0.1.fc32/xdg-desktop-portal-wlr-0.1.0-0.1.fc32.x86_64.rpm |grep pipewire libpipewire-0.3.so.0()(64bit) > * The versioning constraint in > >pkgconfig(wayland-protocols) >= 1.14 > is unnecessary. Even Fedora 30 ships 1.17. In this case, it is recommended to > remove the constraint [1]: Nice catch. Removed. Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/alebastr/sway-extras/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01368748-xdg-desktop-portal-wlr/xdg-desktop-portal-wlr.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/alebastr/sway-extras/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01368748-xdg-desktop-portal-wlr/xdg-desktop-portal-wlr-0.1.0-0.1.fc33.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 1829070] Review Request: multiwatch - Forks and watches multiple instances of a program in the same context
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1829070
--- Comment #1 from Benjamin Lefoul ---
This is a trivial package. All relevant MUSTs pass (after slightly rewriting
the description).
Note: It was also successfully tested in f31 and epel8 in the sympa solution
proposed here: https://github.com/sympa-community/sympa/issues/799
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= 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.
[-]: 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.
[-]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[!]: Spec file is legible and written in American English: "it is easier than
to setup" -> "it is easier than setting up". See also rpmlint below.
[-]: 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 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]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the
[Bug 1831981] Review Request: xdg-desktop-portal-wlr - xdg-desktop-portal backend for wlroots
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1831981 --- Comment #1 from Till Hofmann --- Some remarks: * Why not just >BuildRequires: pkgconfig(libpipewire-0.3) >= 0.3.4 This would avoid the explicit (and redundant) dependency on pipewire. * The versioning constraint in >pkgconfig(wayland-protocols) >= 1.14 is unnecessary. Even Fedora 30 ships 1.17. In this case, it is recommended to remove the constraint [1]: > For instance in the example above, when no current Fedora release shipped > with libfubar < 1.2.3-7, it is no longer necessary to list the explicit, > versioned requirement. [1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_explicit_requires -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-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 Michal Schmidt 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 1814682] Review Request: rshim - rshim driver for Mellanox BlueField SoC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1814682 Michal Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review+ |fedora-review? --- Comment #59 from Michal Schmidt --- (In reply to lsun from comment #57) > It said "The review is not approved by the assignee of the Bugzilla bug". Oh, I see. The server side checks who set the fedora-review+ flag. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1813648] Review Request: golang-github-saracen-walker - Walker is a faster, parallel version, of filepath.Walk
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1813648 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-18cd5f0e4e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-18cd5f0e4e -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1813648] Review Request: golang-github-saracen-walker - Walker is a faster, parallel version, of filepath.Walk
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1813648 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-b95d0ce6b7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-b95d0ce6b7 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1813648] Review Request: golang-github-saracen-walker - Walker is a faster, parallel version, of filepath.Walk
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1813648 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-ff5694dbd8 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-ff5694dbd8 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1831981] Review Request: xdg-desktop-portal-wlr - xdg-desktop-portal backend for wlroots
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1831981 Till Hofmann changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||thofm...@fedoraproject.org Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|thofm...@fedoraproject.org Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1829070] Review Request: multiwatch - Forks and watches multiple instances of a program in the same context
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1829070 Benjamin Lefoul changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1818945] Review Request: lib3mf - Implementation of the 3D Manufacturing Format file standard
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1818945 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2020-6ecb9adca3 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-6ecb9adca3 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 1819148] Review Request: act - Automatic Component Toolkit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1819148 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2020-6ecb9adca3 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-6ecb9adca3 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
