[Bug 724810] aeolus-all - A meta-package to pull in all components for Aeolus
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=724810 Neha Sharma changed: What|Removed |Added CC||extras...@fedoraproject.org ||, nehaservic...@gmail.com Flags||needinfo?(extras-qa@fedorap ||roject.org) ||needinfo?(nehaservice29@gma ||il.com) --- Comment #7 from Neha Sharma --- Great Post Thanks For Sharing https://escortgurgaon.in/;>Escorts In Gurgaon https://escortgurgaon.in/;>delhi russian escorts https://escortgurgaon.in/;>russian escorts https://escortgurgaon.in/;>aerocity escort https://escortgurgaon.in/;>delhi model escorts https://escortgurgaon.in/;>escorts in aerocity https://escortgurgaon.in/;>mahipalpur escorts https://escortgurgaon.in/;>independent escort in gurgaon https://escortgurgaon.in/;>female escort in gurgaon -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1873973] Review Request: ghc-uri-encode - Unicode aware uri-encoding
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873973 --- Comment #6 from Jens Petersen --- I opened https://github.com/silkapp/uri-encode/pull/4 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1873973] Review Request: ghc-uri-encode - Unicode aware uri-encoding
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873973 --- Comment #5 from Jens Petersen --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #2) > - Remove the executable bits from > > ghc-uri-encode.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang > /usr/share/licenses/ghc-uri-encode/LICENSE > ghc-uri-encode-devel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm > /usr/share/doc/ghc-uri-encode-devel/CHANGELOG.md > ghc-uri-encode-devel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm > /usr/share/doc/ghc-uri-encode-devel/README.md > > and send a patch upstream. > > Package approved, please fix the aforementioned issue before import. Sure, great thanks, Robert-André (I really should fix cabal-rpm to detect these perms by prepping. They are basically caused by a bug in older "cabal-install sdist", so eventually they should disappear for good.) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1871697] Review Request: dhall - A configuration language guaranteed to terminate
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1871697 --- Comment #9 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/dhall -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1873973] Review Request: ghc-uri-encode - Unicode aware uri-encoding
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873973 --- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ghc-uri-encode -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1871697] Review Request: dhall - A configuration language guaranteed to terminate
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1871697 --- Comment #8 from Jens Petersen --- Thank you for the review https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/28156 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1873973] Review Request: ghc-uri-encode - Unicode aware uri-encoding
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873973 --- Comment #3 from Jens Petersen --- Thank you for the review https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/28155 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1873912] Review Request: fcitx5-kkc - Libkkc input method support for Fcitx5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873912
--- Comment #2 from Qiyu Yan ---
(In reply to Andy Mender from comment #1)
> > BuildRequires: cmake(Fcitx5Core)
> > BuildRequires: cmake(Fcitx5Qt5WidgetsAddons)
>
> That doesn't quite work in F32 in case the package should go into
> pre-Rawhide tags as well.
For newly built packages, the providing cmake(foo) is present
see: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=23037752 for example
>
> The below works, though (fcitx5-qt-devel doesn't provide pkgconfig files)
> per local tests:
> BuildRequires: pkgconfig(Fcitx5Core)
> BuildRequires: fcitx5-qt-devel
>
> Package Review
> ==
>
> Legend:
> [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
> [ ] = Manual review needed
>
>
>
> = MUST items =
>
> C/C++:
> [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
> [x]: Package contains no static executables.
> [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
> Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
> attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
> Review: Internal to the package. Ignore warning. Files in question
> below:
> %{_libdir}/fcitx5/kkc.so
> %{_libdir}/fcitx5/qt5/libfcitx5-kkc-config.so
I will add
%global __provides_exclude_from ^%{_libdir}/fcitx5/.*\\.so$
> [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 successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
> one supported primary architecture.
> Note: Using prebuilt packages
> Review: Tested in Koji by the submitter.
> [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". 51 files have unknown license. Detailed
> output of licensecheck in
> /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/fcitx5-kkc/fcitx5-kkc/licensecheck.txt
> [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
> [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
> Note: No known owner of /usr/share/fcitx5/inputmethod
> Review: A couple of other fcitx5 modules use that directory, but
> nothing
> owns it. It would make sense for fcitx5 or one of its subpackages to
> own it then.
> [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
> Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/fcitx5/inputmethod
> Review: see comment above.
It is used by many fcitx5-* packages, I think it should be owned by fcitx5-data
itself, see:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fcitx5/c/43fd7b82511fb4293ec9e48eb369736c4659d323?branch=master
> [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
> [?]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
> [x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
> [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
> names).
> [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
> [x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
> [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
> [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
> Provides are present.
> [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
> [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
> [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
> [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
> [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
> [-]: 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 installs properly.
> [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
> Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
> [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
> license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
> license(s) for the package is included in %license.
> [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
> [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
> [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
>
[Bug 810049] Review Request: netbeans-ide - Netbeans Integrated Development Environment (IDE)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810049 Omair Majid changed: What|Removed |Added CC||oma...@redhat.com -- 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 1872867] Review Request: stalld - thread stall detector
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872867 --- Comment #14 from Clark Williams --- Updated Makefile CFLAGS/LDFLAGS and fixed tab vs space issues pushed latest specfile/SRPM to jcwillia.fedorapeople.org -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1874274] Review Request: perl-Alien-Build-MB - Alien::Build installer class for Module::Build
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1874274 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1874286 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1874286 [Bug 1874286] Review Request: perl-Acme-Alien-DontPanic2 - Test module for Alien::Base + Alien::Build -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1874286] Review Request: perl-Acme-Alien-DontPanic2 - Test module for Alien::Base + Alien::Build
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1874286 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1873584 Depends On||1874274 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873584 [Bug 1873584] perl-Alien-Base-ModuleBuild-1.15 is available https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1874274 [Bug 1874274] Review Request: perl-Alien-Build-MB - Alien::Build installer class for Module::Build -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1874286] New: Review Request: perl-Acme-Alien-DontPanic2 - Test module for Alien::Base + Alien::Build
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1874286 Bug ID: 1874286 Summary: Review Request: perl-Acme-Alien-DontPanic2 - Test module for Alien::Base + Alien::Build Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jples...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://jplesnik.fedorapeople.org/perl-Acme-Alien-DontPanic2/perl-Acme-Alien-DontPanic2.spec SRPM URL: https://jplesnik.fedorapeople.org/perl-Acme-Alien-DontPanic2/perl-Acme-Alien-DontPanic2-2.290.1-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: Alien::Base comprises base classes to help in the construction of Alien:: modules. Modules in the Alien namespace are used to locate and install (if necessary) external libraries needed by other Perl modules. Fedora Account System Username: jples...@redhat.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1874274] New: Review Request: perl-Alien-Build-MB - Alien::Build installer class for Module::Build
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1874274 Bug ID: 1874274 Summary: Review Request: perl-Alien-Build-MB - Alien::Build installer class for Module::Build Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jples...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://jplesnik.fedorapeople.org/perl-Alien-Build-MB/perl-Alien-Build-MB.spec SRPM URL: https://jplesnik.fedorapeople.org/perl-Alien-Build-MB/perl-Alien-Build-MB-0.07-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: This is a Module::Build subclass that uses Alien::Build to help create Alien distributions. The author recommends Alien::Build::MM, which uses ExtUtils::MakeMaker instead. The primary rationale for this class, is to prove independence from any particular installer, so that other installers may be added in the future if they become available. If you really do prefer to work with Module::Build though, this may be the installer for you! Fedora Account System Username: jples...@redhat.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1872713] Review Request: atinout - AT commands as input are sent to modem and responses given as output
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872713 sorensen...@tuta.io changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2020-08-31 20:59:26 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1871697] Review Request: dhall - A configuration language guaranteed to terminate
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1871697
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags|needinfo?(zebo...@gmail.com |fedora-review+
|) |
--- Comment #7 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: 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", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised"
License". 2820 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck
in /home/bob/packaging/review/dhall/review-dhall/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if
present.
Note: Package has .a files: ghc-dhall-devel.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in ghc-
dhall
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does
[Bug 1872713] Review Request: atinout - AT commands as input are sent to modem and responses given as output
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872713 --- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/atinout -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1874138] Mass Review Request: deaggregate xorg-x11-server-utils
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1874138 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zebo...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Not starting the review today, but shouldn't you file individual requests? Or are you planning to get an exception with the FPC based on this bug? I'm asking cause Gwyn/Igor script won't work if requested normally. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1873772] Review Request: R-waldo - Find Differences Between R Objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873772
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package have the default element marked as %%doc :DESCRIPTION
- Package requires R-core.
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated". 55 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/R-waldo/review-R-
waldo/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
R:
[x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires.
[x]: The package has the standard %install section.
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]:
[Bug 1873912] Review Request: fcitx5-kkc - Libkkc input method support for Fcitx5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873912
--- Comment #1 from Andy Mender ---
> BuildRequires: cmake(Fcitx5Core)
> BuildRequires: cmake(Fcitx5Qt5WidgetsAddons)
That doesn't quite work in F32 in case the package should go into pre-Rawhide
tags as well.
The below works, though (fcitx5-qt-devel doesn't provide pkgconfig files) per
local tests:
BuildRequires: pkgconfig(Fcitx5Core)
BuildRequires: fcitx5-qt-devel
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
Review: Internal to the package. Ignore warning. Files in question below:
%{_libdir}/fcitx5/kkc.so
%{_libdir}/fcitx5/qt5/libfcitx5-kkc-config.so
[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 successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
Note: Using prebuilt packages
Review: Tested in Koji by the submitter.
[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". 51 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in
/home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/fcitx5-kkc/fcitx5-kkc/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/fcitx5/inputmethod
Review: A couple of other fcitx5 modules use that directory, but nothing
owns it. It would make sense for fcitx5 or one of its subpackages to own
it then.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/fcitx5/inputmethod
Review: see comment above.
[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
[?]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: 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 installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package 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
[Bug 1874149] Review Request: golang-github-openprinting-goipp - Implementation of IPP in Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1874149 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - Summary could be shorter Summary:IPP core protocol in pure Go (RFC 8010) - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines Package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1873973] Review Request: ghc-uri-encode - Unicode aware uri-encoding
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873973
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Remove the executable bits from
ghc-uri-encode.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/licenses/ghc-uri-encode/LICENSE
ghc-uri-encode-devel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/doc/ghc-uri-encode-devel/CHANGELOG.md
ghc-uri-encode-devel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/doc/ghc-uri-encode-devel/README.md
and send a patch upstream.
Package approved, please fix the aforementioned issue before import.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: 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", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised"
License". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/ghc-uri-encode/review-ghc-
uri-encode/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD
[Bug 1872830] Review Request: mlir - Multi-Level Intermediate Representation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872830
--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
The file doesn't seem updated, neither the SRPM or Koji build:
- Package are missing the arch info with %{?_isa}
%package static
Summary: MLIR static files
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
%description static
MLIR static files.
%package devel
Summary: MLIR development files
Requires: %{name}-static%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
%description devel
MLIR development files.
- In order to avoid unintentional soname bump, wo recommend not globbing the
major soname version:
%{_libdir}/libMLIR*.so.11*
%{_libdir}/libmlir_runner_utils.so.11*
%{_libdir}/libmlir_c_runner_utils.so.11*
%{_libdir}/libmlir_c_runner_utils_static.so.11*
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1872713] Review Request: atinout - AT commands as input are sent to modem and responses given as output
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872713 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin --- LGTM, package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1872867] Review Request: stalld - thread stall detector
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872867 --- Comment #13 from Clark Williams --- Added license file (gpl-2.0.txt) and logic to install it properly. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1873912] Review Request: fcitx5-kkc - Libkkc input method support for Fcitx5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873912 Andy Mender changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED 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 1873912] Review Request: fcitx5-kkc - Libkkc input method support for Fcitx5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873912 Andy Mender changed: What|Removed |Added CC||andymenderu...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|andymenderu...@gmail.com 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 1872830] Review Request: mlir - Multi-Level Intermediate Representation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872830 --- Comment #3 from serge_sans_paille --- - License tag considered approved, see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1791958 - Moved to llvm 11 rc2 - __isa and chmod update done - arm arch marked as excluded (I've spent too much time on that one -j1, disabling lto, changing LD_LIBRARY_PATH, using rpath, all these approach failed - doxygen disabled, that's what we do for LLVM/clang/etc and the output is arch-dependant anyway, which is a pain (changing mtime, removing footer from doxygen or fallingback to svg all work but are not enough) - I've double checked the '*.so' librry raising shared-lib-without-dependency-information and these are placeholders - empty libraries, so it makes sence they have no dep information. Update uploaded at Spec URL: https://sergesanspaille.fedorapeople.org/mlir.spec SRPM URL: https://sergesanspaille.fedorapeople.org/mlir-11.0.0-0.1.rc2.fc31.src.rpm koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=50511989 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1871997] Review Request: menulibre - MenuLibre is an advanced FreeDesktop.org compliant menu editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1871997 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-592c9b2539 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 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-2020-592c9b2539 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-592c9b2539 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 1861020] Review Request: x-tile - A GTK application to tile windows in different ways
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1861020 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-e9de2f9ec5 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 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-e9de2f9ec5 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-e9de2f9ec5 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 1872867] Review Request: stalld - thread stall detector
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872867 --- Comment #12 from Clark Williams --- (In reply to Jaroslav Škarvada from comment #11) > (In reply to Clark Williams from comment #9) > > > > Not sure I agree with this. The config file is strictly for the use of the > > unit > > file and I got the impression that the customary place for these paramter > > files > > was in /etc/systemd. Let me dig a little deeper here. > > > IMHO environment files are usually installed under the /etc/sysconfig, it's > sysvinit legacy, but it's not IMHO explicitly written in the guidelines. I > think /etc/systemd is really bad option, e.g.: > $ dnf repoquery --whatprovides '/etc/systemd/*' > Fedora Modular 31 - x86_64 - Updates > 25 kB/s | 22 kB 00:00 > Fedora 31 - x86_64 - Updates > 207 kB/s | 22 kB 00:00 > RPM Fusion for Fedora 31 - Free tainted > 19 kB/s | 8.8 kB 00:00 > systemd-0:243-4.gitef67743.fc31.i686 > systemd-0:243-4.gitef67743.fc31.x86_64 > systemd-0:243.8-1.fc31.i686 > systemd-0:243.8-1.fc31.x86_64 > > but: > $ dnf repoquery --whatprovides '/etc/sysconfig/*' | wc -l > Poslední kontrola metadat: před 0:03:29, Po 31. srpna 2020, 18:40:00 CEST. > 466 > yeah, I re-read the systemd packaging guidelines (link in c#10) and they to mention using /etc/sysconfig. So I changed to use that. > > > > > > - Nice to have (not a blocker): consider adding license file to the > > > upstream > > > project and installing it in the spec by the %license tag, e.g.: > > > %license LICENSE.txt > > > > I added an SPDX tag to the source specifically so we didn't have to carry a > > licence file. Do you know if there's any effort in Fedora to move the > > packaging > > requirements to using SPDX? > > It's just optional. Regarding the SPDX I think it's not explicitly > supported, but maybe better to ask on fedora-devel mailing list. I'll talk to Daniel about adding a License file to the upstream project. Still trying to get the tarball situation straight so our URLs can be fully kernel.org. I pushed new spec/SRPM/tarball to jcwillia.fedorapeople.org. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1872713] Review Request: atinout - AT commands as input are sent to modem and responses given as output
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872713 --- Comment #4 from sorensen...@tuta.io --- Spec URL: https://gitlab.com/fedora-mobile/atinout/-/raw/master/atinout.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/njha/mobile/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01640697-atinout/atinout-0.9.1-1.fc34.src.rpm Successful build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/njha/mobile/build/1640697/ Thanks for the review! I addressed all the issues, however the CFLAGS still needed a version flag in order to build, so in the Makefile I patched it to only set the version using `+=` so now it includes all the CFLAGS from fedora still. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-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 sapna changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sapanasen1...@gmail.com --- Comment #170 from sapna --- Because the admin of this web page is working, no hesitation very rawpidly it will be famous, due to its quality contents. https://callgirlsinmahipalpur247.org/housewife-call-girls-in-gurgaon.html https://callgirlsinmahipalpur247.org https://callgirlsinnoida.in/ https://escortgirlsinnoida.com -- 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 810049] Review Request: netbeans-ide - Netbeans Integrated Development Environment (IDE)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810049 --- Comment #169 from ram varma --- Good way of explaining, and fastidious post to get data about my presentation subject, which i am going to present in university. https://escortgirlsingurgaon.com/escorts-service-in-mahipalpur.html https://hotcallgirlsindelhi.com/call-girls-in-aerocity.html -- 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 810049] Review Request: netbeans-ide - Netbeans Integrated Development Environment (IDE)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810049 ram varma changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ramvarma...@gmail.com --- Comment #168 from ram varma --- I have learn several excellent stuff here. Certainly worth bookmarking for revisiting. I surprise how much attempt you place to create one of these magnificent informative website. https://hotcallgirlsindelhi.com/call-girls-in-south-delhi.html -- 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 1872867] Review Request: stalld - thread stall detector
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872867 --- Comment #11 from Jaroslav Škarvada --- (In reply to Clark Williams from comment #9) > > Not sure I agree with this. The config file is strictly for the use of the > unit > file and I got the impression that the customary place for these paramter > files > was in /etc/systemd. Let me dig a little deeper here. > IMHO environment files are usually installed under the /etc/sysconfig, it's sysvinit legacy, but it's not IMHO explicitly written in the guidelines. I think /etc/systemd is really bad option, e.g.: $ dnf repoquery --whatprovides '/etc/systemd/*' Fedora Modular 31 - x86_64 - Updates 25 kB/s | 22 kB 00:00 Fedora 31 - x86_64 - Updates 207 kB/s | 22 kB 00:00 RPM Fusion for Fedora 31 - Free tainted 19 kB/s | 8.8 kB 00:00 systemd-0:243-4.gitef67743.fc31.i686 systemd-0:243-4.gitef67743.fc31.x86_64 systemd-0:243.8-1.fc31.i686 systemd-0:243.8-1.fc31.x86_64 but: $ dnf repoquery --whatprovides '/etc/sysconfig/*' | wc -l Poslední kontrola metadat: před 0:03:29, Po 31. srpna 2020, 18:40:00 CEST. 466 > > > > - Nice to have (not a blocker): consider adding license file to the upstream > > project and installing it in the spec by the %license tag, e.g.: > > %license LICENSE.txt > > I added an SPDX tag to the source specifically so we didn't have to carry a > licence file. Do you know if there's any effort in Fedora to move the > packaging > requirements to using SPDX? It's just optional. Regarding the SPDX I think it's not explicitly supported, but maybe better to ask on fedora-devel mailing list. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1872867] Review Request: stalld - thread stall detector
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872867 --- Comment #10 from Clark Williams --- (In reply to Clark Williams from comment #9) > (In reply to Jaroslav Škarvada from comment #6) > > > > - I think the systemd configuration file should be installed into the > > /etc/sysconfig, i.e. /etc/sysconfig/stalld (without the .conf), not to the > > /etc/systemd [1]. Also please change the unit file accordingly. > > > > Not sure I agree with this. The config file is strictly for the use of the > unit > file and I got the impression that the customary place for these paramter > files > was in /etc/systemd. Let me dig a little deeper here. Ok re-read this: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Systemd#EnvironmentFiles_and_support_for_.2Fetc.2Fsysconfig_files and saw that I missed the /etc/sysconfig section. Will move the config file over to /etc/sysconfig. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1867329] Review Request: R-RcppDate - 'date' C++ Header Library for Date and Time Functionality
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1867329 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-b1843ef5d0 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-b1843ef5d0 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-b1843ef5d0 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 1871997] Review Request: menulibre - MenuLibre is an advanced FreeDesktop.org compliant menu editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1871997 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-1b8a9123e7 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-2020-1b8a9123e7 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-1b8a9123e7 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 1874149] New: Review Request: golang-github-openprinting-goipp - Implementation of IPP in Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1874149 Bug ID: 1874149 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-openprinting-goipp - Implementation of IPP in Go Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: zdoh...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://zdohnal.fedorapeople.org/goipp/golang-github-openprinting-goipp.spec SRPM URL: https://zdohnal.fedorapeople.org/goipp/golang-github-openprinting-goipp-1.0.0-1.fc32.src.rpm Description: Package goipp implements the IPP core protocol in pure Go (RFC 8010). Fedora Account Username: zdohnal -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1867423] Review Request: R-ragg - Graphic Devices Based on AGG
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1867423 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-aff200a91c has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-aff200a91c` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-aff200a91c 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 1867329] Review Request: R-RcppDate - 'date' C++ Header Library for Date and Time Functionality
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1867329 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-f2c2d6ad2a has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-f2c2d6ad2a` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-f2c2d6ad2a 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 1861020] Review Request: x-tile - A GTK application to tile windows in different ways
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1861020 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-1eec26d4f5 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-2020-1eec26d4f5 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-1eec26d4f5 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 1856904] Review Request: pwncat - TCP/UDP communication suite
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856904 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-2b725239a8 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1874138] New: Mass Review Request: deaggregate xorg-x11-server-utils
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1874138 Bug ID: 1874138 Summary: Mass Review Request: deaggregate xorg-x11-server-utils Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: a...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora This request is the xorg-x11-server-utils part of https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/XorgUtilityDeaggregation . Split spec files and srpms can be found here: https://ajax.fedorapeople.org/deagg/server-utils/ Notes: 'rgb' was already subpackaged, so the initial Release version is set to be just higher than the (hopefully) last version of -server-utils. 'sessreg' is a higher version in this new split packaging than what's currently in -server-utils, because the new upstream version already includes patches we were carrying in -server-utils. The SRPMS say "f31" in the dist tag mostly because gpg signing for f33 wasn't working in mock when I did the test builds, they ought to build just fine against rawhide too. Fedora Account System Username: ajax -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1856904] Review Request: pwncat - TCP/UDP communication suite
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856904 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-08-31 15:49:00 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-4ff810021a 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 1869433] Review Request: php-opis-closure - A library that can be used to serialize closures and arbitrary objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1869433 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-08-31 15:49:20 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-644d4cf4e7 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 1873875] Review Request: icebreaker - An addictive action-puzzle game involving bouncing penguins
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873875 --- Comment #13 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/icebreaker -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1858639] Review Request: qt-avif-image-plugin - Qt plug-in to read/write AVIF images
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1858639 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-9c4dd47cd0 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 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-2020-9c4dd47cd0 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-9c4dd47cd0 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 1842225] Review Request: python-authlib - Build OAuth and OpenID Connect servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1842225 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-e5da62d855 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 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-e5da62d855 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-e5da62d855 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 1867267] Review Request: wlr-sunclock - Show the sun's shadows on earth
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1867267 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-98aea57a41 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 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-2020-98aea57a41 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-98aea57a41 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 1867423] Review Request: R-ragg - Graphic Devices Based on AGG
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1867423 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-fa954516a3 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-fa954516a3` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-fa954516a3 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 1872542] Review Request: lua-lunitx - Unit testing framework for Lua
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872542 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-7c23dc64c0 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 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-2020-7c23dc64c0 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-7c23dc64c0 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 1872508] Review Request: python-sphinx-hoverxref - Sphinx extension to add tooltips on cross references
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872508 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-e052f3981e has been pushed to the Fedora 33 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-e052f3981e \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-e052f3981e 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 1873945] Review Request: cyrus-timezones - Timezone information for the Cyrus IMAP Server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873945 aegor...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from aegor...@redhat.com --- Patch was sent to upstream to fix AutoTools warning: https://github.com/cyrusimap/cyrus-timezones/pull/8 Approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1873945] Review Request: cyrus-timezones - Timezone information for the Cyrus IMAP Server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873945
--- Comment #2 from aegor...@redhat.com ---
This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are
also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla:
- Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such
a list, create one.
- Add your own remarks to the template checks.
- Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not
listed by fedora-review.
- Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this
case you could also file a bug against fedora-review
- Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines
in what you paste.
- Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint
ones are mandatory, though)
- Remove this text
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/
- Dist tag is present.
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF
address)", "*No copyright* Public domain", "Public domain". 17 files
have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/eam/tmp/cyrus-timezones/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.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package 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]: 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
[Bug 1861020] Review Request: x-tile - A GTK application to tile windows in different ways
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1861020 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-e9de2f9ec5 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-e9de2f9ec5 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1861020] Review Request: x-tile - A GTK application to tile windows in different ways
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1861020 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-1eec26d4f5 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-1eec26d4f5 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1873973] Review Request: ghc-uri-encode - Unicode aware uri-encoding
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873973 --- Comment #1 from Jens Petersen --- Currently a subpackage of Agda and now needed for dhall. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1871697] Review Request: dhall - A configuration language guaranteed to terminate
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1871697 --- Comment #6 from Jens Petersen --- Oops, that needinfo was premature, except bug 1873973 now blocks building dhall on i686 (since Agda disables prof libraries on i686). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1873973] Review Request: ghc-uri-encode - Unicode aware uri-encoding
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873973 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1871697 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1871697 [Bug 1871697] Review Request: dhall - A configuration language guaranteed to terminate -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1871697] Review Request: dhall - A configuration language guaranteed to terminate
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1871697 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1873973 Flags||needinfo?(zebo...@gmail.com ||) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873973 [Bug 1873973] Review Request: ghc-uri-encode - Unicode aware uri-encoding -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1871997] Review Request: menulibre - MenuLibre is an advanced FreeDesktop.org compliant menu editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1871997 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-1b8a9123e7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-1b8a9123e7 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1874058] Review Request: logiops - Unofficial driver for Logitech mice and keyboard
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1874058
Artur Iwicki changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fed...@svgames.pl
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #1 from Artur Iwicki ---
>%global logiops %{name}
What's this for?
>Source0: https://github.com/PixlOne/logiops/archive/6d7d91c.zip
The project seems to mark releases with git tags. You can fetch a specific tag
from GitHub. Switch the Source URL to:
https://github.com/PixlOne/logiops/archive/%{version}/logiops-%{version}.zip
>ExclusiveArch: x86_64
Why? I took a brief peek at the GitHub repo and didn't see anything saying that
it won't work on other architectures.
>%global debug_package %{nil}
This is generally a red flag. We want debuginfo in Fedora packages. Remove
this.
>mkdir build
>cd build
>cmake ..
Use the %{cmake} macro instead. It will handle setting up CXXFLAGS (which
should enable debuginfo generation) and also create the build directory
("%{__cmake_builddir}").
>cd build
>make
Use %{cmake_build} instead.
>install -d -m 755 %{buildroot}%{_bindir}
>cp -a build/logid %{buildroot}%{_bindir}
>install -d -m 755 %{buildroot}%{_exec_prefix}/lib/systemd/system/
>cp -a build/logid.service %{buildroot}%{_exec_prefix}/lib/systemd/system/
Try using %{cmake_install} instead?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1871997] Review Request: menulibre - MenuLibre is an advanced FreeDesktop.org compliant menu editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1871997 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-592c9b2539 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-592c9b2539 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1873875] Review Request: icebreaker - An addictive action-puzzle game involving bouncing penguins
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873875 Neal Gompa changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #12 from Neal Gompa --- Everything looks good now, so... PACKAGE APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1873945] Review Request: cyrus-timezones - Timezone information for the Cyrus IMAP Server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873945 --- Comment #1 from Pavel Zhukov --- Spec URL: https://landgraf.fedorapeople.org/packages/cyrus-timezones/cyrus-timezones.spec SRPM URL: https://landgraf.fedorapeople.org/packages/cyrus-timezones/cyrus-timezones-20200901-2.20200901git8c24df1d.fc34.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 1874058] New: Review Request: logiops - Unofficial driver for Logitech mice and keyboard
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1874058 Bug ID: 1874058 Summary: Review Request: logiops - Unofficial driver for Logitech mice and keyboard Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: deami...@bluewin.ch QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://deamn.fedorapeople.org/logiops.spec SRPM URL: https://deamn.fedorapeople.org/logiops-0.2.2-1.fc32.src.rpm Description: This is an unofficial driver for Logitech mice and keyboard. This is currently only compatible with HID++ >2.0 devices. Fedora Account System Username: deamn -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1873875] Review Request: icebreaker - An addictive action-puzzle game involving bouncing penguins
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873875 --- Comment #11 from Neal Gompa --- WHOA. TIL. Alright then... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1872867] Review Request: stalld - thread stall detector
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872867
--- Comment #9 from Clark Williams ---
(In reply to Jaroslav Škarvada from comment #6)
> Despite the CFLAGS/LDFLAGS problem mentioned in the previous comment, there
> are few more things:
>
> - Please make consistent use of the spaces and tabs. You used tabs as a
> separator for the "Name", "Version" and others tags, but spaces for the
> "Requires" and "BuildRequires". Please be consistent. This is not a blocker,
> but nice to have.
I use emacs so that's somewhat transparent to me. I'll go through and
re-justify
the specfile and hopefully get a more consistent usage.
>
> - I think the systemd configuration file should be installed into the
> /etc/sysconfig, i.e. /etc/sysconfig/stalld (without the .conf), not to the
> /etc/systemd [1]. Also please change the unit file accordingly.
>
Not sure I agree with this. The config file is strictly for the use of the unit
file and I got the impression that the customary place for these paramter files
was in /etc/systemd. Let me dig a little deeper here.
> - Please use just (this is to also get rid of the unowned
> /usr/share/stalld-1.0 directory):
> %doc README.md
> to install the README file to the right location (i.e.
> /usr/share/doc/stalld), the /usr/share/stalld-1.0 seems strange. In such
> case the README shouldn't be installed in the Makefile.
> You could also change the Makefile to use the DOCDIR variable and then
> change the spec:
> %install
> %make_install DOCDIR=%{buildroot}%{_docdir}
>
> %files %{_docdir}/README.md
Ok
>
> - Nice to have (not a blocker): consider adding license file to the upstream
> project and installing it in the spec by the %license tag, e.g.:
> %license LICENSE.txt
I added an SPDX tag to the source specifically so we didn't have to carry a
licence file. Do you know if there's any effort in Fedora to move the packaging
requirements to using SPDX?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1873973] New: Review Request: ghc-uri-encode - Unicode aware uri-encoding
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873973 Bug ID: 1873973 Summary: Review Request: ghc-uri-encode - Unicode aware uri-encoding Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: peter...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-uri-encode/ghc-uri-encode.spec SRPM URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-uri-encode/ghc-uri-encode-1.5.0.6-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: Unicode aware uri-encoding. Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=50482166 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1872867] Review Request: stalld - thread stall detector
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872867
--- Comment #8 from Jaroslav Škarvada ---
(In reply to Jaroslav Škarvada from comment #6)
> - You needn't list manual pages as a doc, but this is not a blocker [2]
>
> [1]
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Systemd/
> #_environmentfiles_and_support_for_etcsysconfig_files
> [2] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_manpages
But according to the [2] it MUST have wildcard (and probably also the mandir
macro), the text:
> When installing man pages, note that RPM will re-compress them into its
> preferred format. So the %files section MUST reference manpages with a
> pattern that takes this into account
i.e.:
%{_mandir}/man8/stalld.8*
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1872867] Review Request: stalld - thread stall detector
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872867 --- Comment #7 from Jaroslav Škarvada --- Also in the comment 5 I wasn't correct, it doesn't build on the aarch64, ppc64le and s390x: src/stalld.c: In function 'sched_setattr': src/stalld.c:88:17: error: '__NR_sched_setattr' undeclared (first use in this function); did you mean 'sched_setattr'? 88 | return syscall(__NR_sched_setattr, pid, attr, flags); | ^~ | sched_setattr src/stalld.c:88:17: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only once for each function it appears in src/stalld.c: In function 'sched_getattr': src/stalld.c:94:18: error: '__NR_sched_getattr' undeclared (first use in this function); did you mean 'sched_getattr'? 94 | return syscall (__NR_sched_getattr, pid , attr, size, flags); | ^~ | sched_getattr src/stalld.c: In function 'sched_setattr': src/stalld.c:89:1: warning: control reaches end of non-void function [-Wreturn-type] 89 | } | ^ src/stalld.c: In function 'sched_getattr': src/stalld.c:95:1: warning: control reaches end of non-void function [-Wreturn-type] 95 | } | ^ make: *** [: src/stalld.o] Error 1 It needs to be fixed to build on all supported architectures or it nees ExcludeArch. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1872867] Review Request: stalld - thread stall detector
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872867
--- Comment #6 from Jaroslav Škarvada ---
Despite the CFLAGS/LDFLAGS problem mentioned in the previous comment, there are
few more things:
- Please make consistent use of the spaces and tabs. You used tabs as a
separator for the "Name", "Version" and others tags, but spaces for the
"Requires" and "BuildRequires". Please be consistent. This is not a blocker,
but nice to have.
- I think the systemd configuration file should be installed into the
/etc/sysconfig, i.e. /etc/sysconfig/stalld (without the .conf), not to the
/etc/systemd [1]. Also please change the unit file accordingly.
- Please use just (this is to also get rid of the unowned /usr/share/stalld-1.0
directory):
%doc README.md
to install the README file to the right location (i.e. /usr/share/doc/stalld),
the /usr/share/stalld-1.0 seems strange. In such case the README shouldn't be
installed in the Makefile.
You could also change the Makefile to use the DOCDIR variable and then change
the spec:
%install
%make_install DOCDIR=%{buildroot}%{_docdir}
%files %{_docdir}/README.md
- Nice to have (not a blocker): consider adding license file to the upstream
project and installing it in the spec by the %license tag, e.g.:
%license LICENSE.txt
- You needn't list manual pages as a doc, but this is not a blocker [2]
[1]
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Systemd/#_environmentfiles_and_support_for_etcsysconfig_files
[2] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_manpages
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1872867] Review Request: stalld - thread stall detector
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872867
--- Comment #5 from Jaroslav Škarvada ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
Note: Upstream MD5sum check error
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/
Not a blocker, please next time make the files in sync. In the review it's
maybe better to bump the release and reupload the spec and srpm.
- systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and
systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files.
Note: Systemd service file(s) in stalld
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/Scriptlets/#_scriptlets
Probably false positive.
- Package is not compiled with the distribution CFLAGS/LDFLAGS
Please add CFLAGS/LDFLAGS variables to the Makefile.
= 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.
[-]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/yarda/git-
fedora/stalld/1872867-stalld/licensecheck.txt
[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/stalld-1.0
See next comment for possible solution.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/stalld-1.0
[!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
This is serious, please add CFLAGS/LDFLAGS to the Makefile
[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.
[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]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package 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]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[!]: If the source package
[Bug 1873945] Review Request: cyrus-timezones - Timezone information for the Cyrus IMAP Server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873945 Pavel Zhukov changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1859335 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1859335 [Bug 1859335] Package request: cyrus-timezones -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1873945] Review Request: cyrus-timezones - Timezone information for the Cyrus IMAP Server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873945 aegor...@redhat.com 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 1873945] Review Request: cyrus-timezones - Timezone information for the Cyrus IMAP Server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873945 aegor...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||aegor...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|aegor...@redhat.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1873945] New: Review Request: cyrus-timezones - Timezone information for the Cyrus IMAP Server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873945 Bug ID: 1873945 Summary: Review Request: cyrus-timezones - Timezone information for the Cyrus IMAP Server Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: pzhu...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://landgraf.fedorapeople.org/packages/cyrus-timezones/cyrus-timezones.spec SRPM URL: https://landgraf.fedorapeople.org/packages/cyrus-timezones/cyrus-timezones-20200901-1.20200901git8c24df1d.fc34.src.rpm Description: This is separate package for vzic timezone compiler. it was shipped as part of cyrus-imapd before Fedora Account System Username: landgraf -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
