[Bug 1935255] Review Request: python-jaraco-path - cross platform hidden file detection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1935255 --- Comment #12 from Karolina Surma --- All looks good to me. The package can be 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1936772] New: Review Request: sixel - Encoder and decoder for DEC Sixel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936772 Bug ID: 1936772 Summary: Review Request: sixel - Encoder and decoder for DEC Sixel Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: d...@qemfd.net QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://dank.qemfd.net/sixel.spec SRPM URL: http://dank.qemfd.net/sixel-1.8.6-1.fc35.src.rpm Description: Encoder and decoder for DEC Sixel terminal pixel graphics Fedora Account System Username: nickblack -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1936414] Review Request: cotila - Compile-time Linear Algebra Header only library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936414
Vasiliy Glazov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Vasiliy Glazov ---
Package Approved.
But you need move AUTHORS file to %doc.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "Apache License 2.0". 29 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/vascom/1936414-cotila/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: 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 must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]:
[Bug 1936055] Review Request: php-pecl-xmlrpc - Functions to write XML-RPC servers and clients
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936055 Remi Collet changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #3 from Remi Collet --- > I'd like to see phpci added but since the test suite works I'm not concerned. phpci (php-bartlett-PHP-CompatInfo) is a static analyser for PHP library, so doesn't make sense for a C extension Thanks for the review SCL request https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/32669 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1851463] Review Request: python-django-uuslug - A Django slugify application that guarantees uniqueness and handles unicode
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1851463 Vasiliy Glazov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2021-03-09 05:37:34 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1919606] Review Request: rnnoise - Recurrent neural network for audio noise reduction
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919606 Vasiliy Glazov changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1920675 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1920675 [Bug 1920675] Noise Reduction is not enabled -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1936727] Review Request: ignition-common - AV, Graphics, Events, and much more
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936727 Rich Mattes changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1694168 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694168 [Bug 1694168] gazebo-11.0.0 is available -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1936728] Review Request: ignition-fuel-tools - C++ client library and CLI tools for interacting with Ignition Fuel servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936728 Rich Mattes changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1694168 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694168 [Bug 1694168] gazebo-11.0.0 is available -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1936728] New: Review Request: ignition-fuel-tools - C++ client library and CLI tools for interacting with Ignition Fuel servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936728
Bug ID: 1936728
Summary: Review Request: ignition-fuel-tools - C++ client
library and CLI tools for interacting with Ignition
Fuel servers
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Component: Package Review
Severity: medium
Priority: medium
Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
Reporter: richmat...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora
Spec URL:
https://rmattes.fedorapeople.org/RPMS/ignition-fuel-tools/ignition-fuel-tools.spec
SRPM URL:
https://rmattes.fedorapeople.org/RPMS/ignition-fuel-tools/ignition-fuel-tools-4.3.0-1.fc33.src.rpm
Description:
Ignition Fuel Tools is composed by a client library and command line tools for
interacting with Ignition Fuel servers.
Fedora Account System Username: rmattes
rpmlint:
$ rpmlint ignition-fuel-tools.spec
../SRPMS/ignition-fuel-tools-4.3.0-1.fc33.src.rpm
ignition-fuel-tools.spec:70: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/ruby
ignition-fuel-tools.src:70: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/ruby
1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings.
Hard-coded path needed to remove un-needed installed ruby artifacts
Builds can be found on copr - dependencies are too old in rawhide:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/g/robotics-sig/gazebo-latest/package/ignition-fuel-tools/
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1936727] New: Review Request: ignition-common - AV, Graphics, Events, and much more
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936727
Bug ID: 1936727
Summary: Review Request: ignition-common - AV, Graphics,
Events, and much more
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Component: Package Review
Severity: medium
Priority: medium
Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
Reporter: richmat...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora
Spec URL:
https://rmattes.fedorapeople.org/RPMS/ignition-common/ignition-common.spec
SRPM URL:
https://rmattes.fedorapeople.org/RPMS/ignition-common/ignition-common-3.10.1-1.fc33.src.rpm
Description:
Ignition Common, a component of Ignition Robotics, provides a set of libraries
that cover many different use cases. An audio-visual library supports
processing audio and video files, a graphics library can load a variety 3D mesh
file formats into a generic in-memory representation, and the core library of
Ignition Common contains functionality that spans Base64 encoding/decoding to
thread pools.
Fedora Account System Username: rmattes
rpmlint:
$ rpmlint ignition-common.spec ../SRPMS/ignition-common-3.10.1-1.fc33.src.rpm
ignition-common.spec:77: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/ruby
ignition-common.src:77: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/ruby
1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings.
Hard-coded path needed to remove un-needed installed ruby artifacts
Builds can be found on copr - dependencies are too old in rawhide:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/g/robotics-sig/gazebo-latest/package/ignition-common/
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1928969] Review Request: chatty - mobile libpurple messaging client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1928969 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||ke...@scrye.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ke...@scrye.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Kevin Fenzi --- I'll review this. Look for a full review in a while... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1936715] Review Request: rust-diffus-derive - Finds the difference between two instances of any data structure
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936715 Fabio Valentini changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1936714 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936714 [Bug 1936714] Review Request: rust-diffus - Finds the difference between two instances of any data structure -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1936714] Review Request: rust-diffus - Finds the difference between two instances of any data structure
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936714 Fabio Valentini changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1936708 Depends On||1936713, 1936715 Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936708 [Bug 1936708] newsflash-1.3.0 is available https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936713 [Bug 1936713] Review Request: rust-snake_case - String-like type that can only contain valid non-empty snake_case https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936715 [Bug 1936715] Review Request: rust-diffus-derive - Finds the difference between two instances of any data structure -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1936713] Review Request: rust-snake_case - String-like type that can only contain valid non-empty snake_case
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936713 Fabio Valentini changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1936714 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936714 [Bug 1936714] Review Request: rust-diffus - Finds the difference between two instances of any data structure -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1936715] New: Review Request: rust-diffus-derive - Finds the difference between two instances of any data structure
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936715 Bug ID: 1936715 Summary: Review Request: rust-diffus-derive - Finds the difference between two instances of any data structure Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: decatho...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-diffus-derive.spec SRPM URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-diffus-derive-0.9.1-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: Finds the difference between two instances of any data structure. Supports derive on structs and enums. Fedora Account System Username: decathorpe -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1936715] Review Request: rust-diffus-derive - Finds the difference between two instances of any data structure
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936715 --- Comment #1 from Fabio Valentini --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=63383516 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1936714] New: Review Request: rust-diffus - Finds the difference between two instances of any data structure
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936714 Bug ID: 1936714 Summary: Review Request: rust-diffus - Finds the difference between two instances of any data structure Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: decatho...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-diffus.spec SRPM URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-diffus-0.9.1-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: Finds the difference between two instances of any data structure. Supports: collections, Strings, Maps etc. Uses LCS where applicable. Also supports derive via `diffus-derive`. Fedora Account System Username: decathorpe -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
needinfo canceled: [Bug 1723575] Review Request: python-insights-core - data collection and processing framework
Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Package Review has canceled Package Review 's request for Dylan Stephano-Shachter 's needinfo: Bug 1723575: Review Request: python-insights-core - data collection and processing framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1723575 --- Comment #12 from Package Review --- This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script. The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it. ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1936713] Review Request: rust-snake_case - String-like type that can only contain valid non-empty snake_case
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936713 --- Comment #1 from Fabio Valentini --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=63383395 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1936713] New: Review Request: rust-snake_case - String-like type that can only contain valid non-empty snake_case
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936713 Bug ID: 1936713 Summary: Review Request: rust-snake_case - String-like type that can only contain valid non-empty snake_case Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: decatho...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-snake_case.spec SRPM URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-snake_case-0.2.0-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: SnakeCase is a String-like type that can only contain valid non-empty snake_case. Fedora Account System Username: decathorpe -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1934396] Review Request: xstdcmap - Utility to define standard colormap properties
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1934396 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1934395] Review Request: xsetroot - Root window parameter setting utility for X
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1934395 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1934394] Review Request: xset - User preference utility for X
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1934394 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1934393] Review Request: xrefresh - Refresh all or part of an X screen
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1934393 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1934392] Review Request: xrdb - X server resource database utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1934392 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1934391] Review Request: xrandr - Commandline utility to change output properties
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1934391 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1934390] Review Request: xmodmap - Edit and display the X11 core keyboard map
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1934390 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1934389] Review Request: xkill - Utility to force-close an X client's connection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1934389 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1934387] Review Request: xinput - Utility to query X Input devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1934387 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1934386] Review Request: xhost - Manage hosts or users allowed to connect to the X server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1934386 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1934385] Review Request: xgamma - X utility to query and alter the gamma correction of a monitor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1934385 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1934383] Review Request: rgb - X color name database
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1934383 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1934384] Review Request: sessreg - Utility to manage utmp/wtmp entries for X sessions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1934384 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1934382] Review Request: iceauth - Display the authorization information used in connecting with ICE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1934382 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1932760] Review Request: xisxwayland - Tool to check if the X server is XWayland
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1932760 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1925322] Review Request: google-guest-agent - Guest agent for Google Cloud Platform
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925322 ericedens changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(ericedens@google. | |com)| --- Comment #9 from ericedens --- Created attachment 1761850 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1761850=edit fedora-review-output.txt - submitted build for golang-github-googlecloudplatform-guest-logging; currently showing live in F35: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/golang-github-googlecloudplatform-guest-logging - Ran `fedora-review -b 1925322 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64`. The build passed, and the results are attached. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1919712] Review Request: xbg - Tiny XCB root window color setter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919712 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-b0b8a01fbe has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-b0b8a01fbe \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-b0b8a01fbe 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1919712] Review Request: xbg - Tiny XCB root window color setter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919712 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-6babac6a50 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-6babac6a50 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-6babac6a50 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1919712] Review Request: xbg - Tiny XCB root window color setter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919712 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2021-c8a929affd has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-c8a929affd 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1936138] Review Request: wyhash - No hash function is perfect, but some are useful
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936138 Antonio T. sagitter changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Antonio T. sagitter --- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1913737] Review Request: playonlinux - Graphical front-end for Wine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913737 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2021-450431ab2b has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-450431ab2b -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1913737] Review Request: playonlinux - Graphical front-end for Wine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913737 Bug 1913737 depends on bug 1744725, which changed state. Bug 1744725 Summary: Lutris package ready for EPEL 8 need cabextract https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1744725 What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1936138] Review Request: wyhash - No hash function is perfect, but some are useful
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936138
--- Comment #3 from c...@musicinmybrain.net ---
Actually, I guess that
%global distprefix %{nil}
before %forgemeta should prevent the snapshot versioning too.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1936138] Review Request: wyhash - No hash function is perfect, but some are useful
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936138
--- Comment #2 from c...@musicinmybrain.net ---
> - Just a comment about versioning.
> Have the rpms a "snapshots" form of versioning?
>
> (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_snapshots)
Yes, when you use the “forge” macros with a tag
(https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_tag_example),
they automatically add a “snapshot” date. Unfortunately, the release template
(https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_release_example),
which would not do this, very rarely works.
Packaging variables read or set by %forgemeta
forgeurl: https://github.com/wangyi-fudan/wyhash
forgesource:
https://github.com/wangyi-fudan/wyhash/archive/wyhash_final/wyhash-wyhash_final.tar.gz
forgesetupargs:-n wyhash-wyhash_final
archivename: wyhash-wyhash_final
archiveext:tar.gz
archiveurl:
https://github.com/wangyi-fudan/wyhash/archive/wyhash_final/wyhash-wyhash_final.tar.gz
topdir:wyhash-wyhash_final
extractdir:wyhash-wyhash_final
repo: wyhash
scm: git
tag: wyhash_final
distprefix:.20210306gitfinal
dist: .20210306gitfinal.fc33
(snapshot date is either manually supplied or computed once
%{_sourcedir}/%{archivename}.%{archiveext} is available)
It’s possible to work around drop the forge macros and construct the tag
archive URL manually, e.g.
https://github.com/wangyi-fudan/%{name}/archive/%{tag}.tar.gz.
> Why this date? 20210306 (6th March, 2021??)
It’s coming from the mtime on the source tarball.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1933988] Review Request: nativejit - Library for high-performance just-in-time compilation of expressions involving C data structures
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933988 --- Comment #20 from c...@musicinmybrain.net --- The idea of a -filesystem package is that, when all you need is the directory to store files in “in case they are needed,” you can depend on the -filesystem package instead of pulling in another system (in this case CMake) that might not be otherwise required. The first part of https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_file_and_directory_ownership and the subsection https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_the_directory_is_owned_by_a_package_which_is_not_required_for_your_package_to_function both talk about these -filesystem packages. For example, suppose I have a package that requires nativejit-devel but does not use CMake. If nativejit-devel Requires cmake-filesystem, that is just one trivial extra package added to my buildroot. If nativejit-devel Requires cmake, that is 17 unnecessary packages added to my buildroot, totaling 24 M downloaded and 107 M installed, including guile22 and python3. This is not catastrophic, but you can see why people try to avoid it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1912856] Review Request: foot - Fast, lightweight and minimalistic Wayland terminal emulator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1912856
Artem changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||ego.corda...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ego.corda...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Artem ---
LGTM. Just one minor issue. Please fix before import. Package approved.
Package must own all directories that it creates:
%{_datadir}/%{name}/%{name}.ini
->
%{_datadir}/%{name}/
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License", "*No copyright* Expat
License". 112 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /mnt/data-linux/tmp/fedora-
review/1912856-foot/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/foot
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/foot
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
/usr/share/terminfo/f(ncurses-term), /usr/share/fish(zola, bat,
tealdeer, alacritty, ripgrep, swaylock, swayidle, flatpak, docker-
compose, fish, fd-find, exa, pipx, wlogout, task, ffsend, hyperfine,
exercism, fedmod, sway, ocrmypdf, cpu-x, ikona-cli-fish-completions),
/usr/share/fish/vendor_completions.d(podman, zola, bat, tealdeer,
alacritty, ripgrep, swaylock, swayidle, flatpak, docker-compose,
podman-remote, fish, fd-find, exa, pipx, moby-engine-fish-completion,
ffsend, hyperfine, exercism, fedmod, sway, ocrmypdf, cpu-x),
/usr/share/zsh(skim, why3, python3-wstool, zola, git-delta, alacritty,
ripgrep, caddy, curl, swaylock, vcsh, profile-cleaner, swayidle,
creds, mako, reprepro, docker-compose, osmium-tool, xss-lock, ninja-
build, libinput, zsh, kde-connect, playerctl, fd-find, exa, wlogout,
task, ffsend, pdfgrep, etckeeper, hyperfine, mercurial, snapd,
pulseaudio, gpaste, stratis-cli, exercism, fedmod, sway, catimg,
awscli, cpu-x, polybar), /usr/share/zsh/site-functions(skim, why3,
python3-wstool, podman, zola, buku, firewalld, git-delta, alacritty,
ripgrep, caddy, curl, swaylock, vcsh, profile-cleaner, restic,
profile-sync-daemon, xpanes, swayidle, creds, nnn, flatpak, mako,
reprepro, docker-compose, osmium-tool, imgp, podman-remote, xss-lock,
ninja-build, libinput, zsh, kde-connect, playerctl, fd-find, exa,
khard, wlogout, kompose, task, arch-install-scripts, ffsend, pdfgrep,
polybar, awscli, hyperfine, mercurial, fzf, snapd, flameshot,
pulseaudio, gpaste, stratis-cli, exercism, googler, sway, catimg,
ddgr, lastpass-cli, cpu-x, rubygem-ronn-ng)
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: 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.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 51200 bytes in 2 files.
[x]:
[Bug 1936138] Review Request: wyhash - No hash function is perfect, but some are useful
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936138
--- Comment #1 from Antonio T. sagitter ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
- Just a comment about versioning.
Have the rpms a "snapshots" form of versioning?
(https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_snapshots)
Why this date? 20210306 (6th March, 2021??)
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "the Unlicense", "Unknown or generated". 16 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/sagitter/1936138-wyhash/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in wyhash-
devel
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[?]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English
[Bug 1936494] Review Request: fuzzel - Application launcher for wlroots based Wayland compositors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936494
Aleksei Bavshin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Aleksei Bavshin ---
Approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Ok, with /usr/share/zsh being a known exception required to install the
completion files.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: 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
[Bug 1932728] Review Request: sway-systemd - Systemd integration for Sway session
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1932728 Aleksei Bavshin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST --- Comment #6 from Aleksei Bavshin --- (In reply to Davide Cavalca from comment #5) Thanks for the review, Davide! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1933988] Review Request: nativejit - Library for high-performance just-in-time compilation of expressions involving C data structures
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933988
--- Comment #19 from Antonio T. sagitter ---
(In reply to code from comment #17)
> I’m not sure that requiring all of CMake from -devel to own the directory is
> the right approach. Is the goal to support EPEL7, where this package is not
> available? If so, it seems like it would be better to conditionalize it:
>
> %if 0%{?epel} == 7
> Requires: cmake%{?_isa}
> %else
> Requires: cmake-filesystem
> %endif
>
> Actually, what I would do is
>
> %if 0%{?epel} != 7
> Requires: cmake-filesystem
> %endif
>
> and then in %files devel, co-own the directory on EPEL7:
>
> %if 0%{?epel} == 7
> %dir %{_libdir}/cmake/
> %endif
>
>
EPEL7 support is not expected for now.
However, in Fedora, 'cmake' requires 'cmake-filesystem' (that wouldn't make
sense without cmake):
$ repoquery --requires cmake | grep filesystem
Last metadata expiration check: 0:03:36 ago on lun 8 mar 2021, 19:09:01.
cmake-filesystem(x86-32) = 3.18.3-1.fc33
cmake-filesystem(x86-64) = 3.18.3-1.fc33
cmake-filesystem(x86-64) = 3.18.4-2.fc33
>
> That said, I’ll go ahead and approve the package as-is. Thanks for working
> through all of these details.
Thank you.
>
>
>
> If you have the chance to review one of mine, would you mind doing
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936138? I need it for
> unbundling from grpc. It’s a header-only C library that shouldn’t take long
> to review. Thanks!
Assigned.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1932728] Review Request: sway-systemd - Systemd integration for Sway session
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1932728 Davide Cavalca changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Davide Cavalca --- Thanks! I think you're correct about the scriptlets, this is probably not necessary for targets. Looks like everything's taken care of, 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1932728] Review Request: sway-systemd - Systemd integration for Sway session
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1932728 Aleksei Bavshin changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(alebastr89@gmail. | |com)| --- Comment #4 from Aleksei Bavshin --- (In reply to Davide Cavalca from comment #3) > Outstanding issues: > - no package is owning /etc/sway/config.d; this should be owned either by > this package, or by sway itself if it's a generic sway thing that others may > drop configs into Will be owned by sway, see https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/sway/pull-request/11 > - missing scriptlets for systemd user units (see > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/ > #_user_units) I checked other specs and I've never seen this part of the guildelines being applied to target files (see gnome-session and plasma-workspace). I'm not opposed to adding the scriptlets though, just not sure if those will do anything meaningful. > Also, the specfile lists this under MIT, but licensecheck detects it an > Expat license (although it is actually MIT afaict). It'd be good to add > license headers to the upstream sources as well, but it's not a blocker. The commonly used MIT variant is the same as Expat license. Licensecheck is either not aware of that or uses Expat to avoid ambiguity with MIT/X11 and other variants. AFAIK, license headers are not required and certainly won't affect licensecheck output. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1936138] Review Request: wyhash - No hash function is perfect, but some are useful
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936138 Antonio T. sagitter changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|trp...@rocketmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1925940] Review Request: python-cwcwidth - Python bindings for wc(s)width
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925940 --- Comment #1 from Terje Røsten --- Update: 0.1.4 Fix Python provide for Fedora 32. spec: https://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/python-cwcwidth/python-cwcwidth.spec srpm: https://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/python-cwcwidth/python-cwcwidth-0.1.4-1.fc31.src.rpm user: terjeros koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=63361050 desc: Python bindings for wc(s)widthcwcwidth provides Python bindings for wcwidth and wcswidth functions defined in POSIX.1-2001 and POSIX.1-2008 based on Cython . These functions compute the printable length of a unicode character/string on a terminal. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1834731] Review Request: bitcoin - Peer to Peer Cryptographic Currency
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731 --- Comment #66 from Mattia Verga --- *** Bug 1020292 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1020292] DO NOT PACKAGE: bitcoin - Peer-to-peer digital currency
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020292 Mattia Verga changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed|2020-05-12 10:10:22 |2021-03-08 17:51:05 --- Comment #60 from Mattia Verga --- I'm going to close this again as duplicate of #1834731 There's no need to have both open. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1834731 *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1925322] Review Request: google-guest-agent - Guest agent for Google Cloud Platform
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925322 Neal Gompa changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(ericedens@google. ||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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1931054] Review Request: python-pyte - In memory VT-compatible terminal emulator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1931054 --- Comment #7 from Terje Røsten --- Thanks! SCM request sent: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/32642 Could you please consider to have a look at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925940 too? I think it should be fairly simple. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1936494] Review Request: fuzzel - Application launcher for wlroots based Wayland compositors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936494 --- Comment #4 from Artem --- Great. Thanks. New spec and srpm: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/fuzzel.spec https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/fuzzel-1.5.1-2.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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1919712] Review Request: xbg - Tiny XCB root window color setter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919712 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2021-c8a929affd has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-c8a929affd -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1932728] Review Request: sway-systemd - Systemd integration for Sway session
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1932728 Davide Cavalca changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(alebastr89@gmail. ||com) --- Comment #3 from Davide Cavalca --- Outstanding issues: - no package is owning /etc/sway/config.d; this should be owned either by this package, or by sway itself if it's a generic sway thing that others may drop configs into - missing scriptlets for systemd user units (see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_user_units) Also, the specfile lists this under MIT, but licensecheck detects it an Expat license (although it is actually MIT afaict). It'd be good to add license headers to the upstream sources as well, but it's not a blocker. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1932728] Review Request: sway-systemd - Systemd integration for Sway session
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1932728
--- Comment #2 from Davide Cavalca ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- systemd_user_post is invoked in %post and systemd_user_preun in %preun
for Systemd user units service files.
Note: Systemd user unit service file(s) in sway-systemd
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/Scriptlets/#_user_units
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Expat License", "Unknown or generated". 11 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/a/1932728-sway-
systemd/licensecheck.txt
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /etc/sway/config.d
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/sway/config.d
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: 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]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: %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]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of
[Bug 1936494] Review Request: fuzzel - Application launcher for wlroots based Wayland compositors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936494
Aleksei Bavshin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|alebast...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #3 from Aleksei Bavshin ---
(In reply to Artem from comment #2)
> Hello Aleksei. Fuzzel seems like ready to push for >= f34. If you still
> interesting in it i appreciate if you review and co-maintain it.
Sure. I kind of forgot about that one while waiting for Bug1912856 :(
---
Please, add `BuildRequires: tllist-static`. Apparently, it is required for
header-only libraries even if `pkgconfig(tllist)` is already in place; I fixed
that for `foot` but forgot to update other specs.
> %{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1.*
The Guidelines example does not have that last dot: `%{_mandir}/man1/foo.1*`.
It's likely made that way to match even uncompressed files.
Looks good otherwise, will do a formal review later.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1919712] Review Request: xbg - Tiny XCB root window color setter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919712 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-b0b8a01fbe has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-b0b8a01fbe -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1922166] Review Request: purple-mm-sms - A libpurple plugin for sending and receiving SMS via ModemManager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922166 sorensen...@tuta.io changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2021-03-08 17:13:19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1869109] Review Request: kgx - Mobile optimized Terminal
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1869109 sorensen...@tuta.io changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED CC||sorensen...@tuta.io Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Last Closed||2021-03-08 17:12:08 --- Comment #2 from sorensen...@tuta.io --- Given the discussion in the meeting, we will close this review. https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2021-03-08/fedora_mobility_sig.2021-03-08-16.30.log.html -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1932728] Review Request: sway-systemd - Systemd integration for Sway session
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1932728 Davide Cavalca changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1935923 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1935923 [Bug 1935923] RFE: sway control groups organization for systemd-oomd -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1932728] Review Request: sway-systemd - Systemd integration for Sway session
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1932728 Davide Cavalca changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dcava...@fb.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|dcava...@fb.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Davide Cavalca --- Taking this review -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1919712] Review Request: xbg - Tiny XCB root window color setter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919712 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-6babac6a50 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-6babac6a50 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1929992] Review Request: python-wcmatch - Wildcard/glob file name matcher
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1929992 Lumír Balhar changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lbal...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ksu...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1919712] Review Request: xbg - Tiny XCB root window color setter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919712 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-7ca0d722d3 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-7ca0d722d3 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1912585] Review Request: golang-github-insomniacslk-xjson - Extended JSON marshallers and unmarshallers (like URL, Time, etc)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1912585 --- Comment #3 from Davide Cavalca --- Thanks! $ fedpkg request-repo golang-github-insomniacslk-xjson 1912585 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/32641 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1936055] Review Request: php-pecl-xmlrpc - Functions to write XML-RPC servers and clients
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936055
Gwyn Ciesla changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla ---
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]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Public domain". 71
files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/gwyn/fedora/git/1936055-php-pecl-xmlrpc/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[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.
[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 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]: %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]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include
[Bug 1936055] Review Request: php-pecl-xmlrpc - Functions to write XML-RPC servers and clients
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936055 Gwyn Ciesla 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1936055] Review Request: php-pecl-xmlrpc - Functions to write XML-RPC servers and clients
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936055 Gwyn Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added CC||gw...@protonmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|gw...@protonmail.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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1922315] Review Request: wdt - Warp speed Data Transfer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922315 Ben Cotton changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|182235 (FE-Legal) | --- Comment #5 from Ben Cotton --- Approved by Legal Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182235 [Bug 182235] Fedora Legal Tracker -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1934194] Review Request: python-libcst - A concrete syntax tree with AST-like properties for Python 3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1934194 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-23c3fbaa92 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-23c3fbaa92 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-23c3fbaa92 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1925761] Review Request: python-reedsolo - Pure-Python Reed Solomon encoder/decoder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925761 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-d2cfe9bac0 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-d2cfe9bac0 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-d2cfe9bac0 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1936494] Review Request: fuzzel - Application launcher for wlroots based Wayland compositors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936494 Artem changed: What|Removed |Added CC||alebast...@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value --- Comment #2 from Artem --- Hello Aleksei. Fuzzel seems like ready to push for >= f34. If you still interesting in it i appreciate if you review and co-maintain it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1935650] Review Request: rubygem-ffi-rzmq-core - This gem provides only the FFI wrapper for the ZeroMQ (0mq) networking library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1935650 --- Comment #10 from Jarek Prokop --- (In reply to Vít Ondruch from comment #9) > I just wonder, do we really need this package? As far as I understand, this > is required to satisfy Cucumber test requirements. I realize this can be > also runtime dependency if chosen, but we don't have this use case, or do we? IMHO it comes down to if we want to provide that functionality by default. We can just package protobuf (with disabled zmq support and maybe some message), and if users will want to use the zeromq capability they will have to install the gem and the library. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1936494] Review Request: fuzzel - Application launcher for wlroots based Wayland compositors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936494 --- Comment #1 from Artem --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=63350773 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1936494] New: Review Request: fuzzel - Application launcher for wlroots based Wayland compositors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936494 Bug ID: 1936494 Summary: Review Request: fuzzel - Application launcher for wlroots based Wayland compositors Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ego.corda...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/fuzzel.spec SRPM URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/fuzzel-1.5.1-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: Fuzzel is a Wayland-native application launcher, similar to rofi's drun mode. Features: - Wayland native - Rofi drun-like mode of operation - dmenu mode where newline separated entries are read from stdin - Emacs key bindings - Icons! - Remembers frequently launched applications Fedora Account System Username: atim -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1910504] Review Request: libucl - Universal configuration library parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1910504 c...@musicinmybrain.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(timothee.floure@p ||osteo.net) --- Comment #9 from c...@musicinmybrain.net --- The linked SRPM is built with an old version of the spec file; it does not match the spec URL. - It’s not hard to unbundle at least the header-only libraries. For example, for uthash, which was already in Fedora: 1. Per the guidelines for depending on header-only libraries, you need to BR uthash-static in addition to uthash-devel. 2. In %prep, “rm -rf uthash/*” That’s all! Now it uses the system copy. Now there are some problems with uthash 2.x, vs. the bundled 1.x: * libucl uses removed macros utstring_append_len() and utstring_append_c(); this could be easily patched by defining them, if missing, in src/ucl_internal.h * ucl_parser.c uses strtoimax without directly including inttypes.h, which was previously indirectly included from uthash.h; this is also easily patched * ucl_emitter_utils.c uses uthash internals, accessing the pd member directly, but this member no longer exists in 2.x Okay, now it’s getting hard. At this point we could decide that this is more than we are willing to try to patch, and leave the library bundled—not because of the build system, but because of the uthash 2.x incompatibility. In that case, you need to: 1. Drop the BR’s on uthash-devel and uthash-static 2. Write the virtual Provides for the bundled library correctly: instead of Provides: bundled(uthash-devel) it should be # See UTHASH_VERSION in uthash/uthash.h Provides: bundled(uthash) = 1.9.8 3. File an upstream bug report about the incompatibility and link it from the spec file! - You really need to try to unbundle at least the other header-only libraries, since it is as easy as removing the bundled copies in %prep (which you are required to do for bundled libraries anyway). That’s pretty much upstream support. They only thing upstream could do to make it easier would be to provide a configure argument. I think the guidelines don’t really give you any wiggle room here. Note that for anything you do not unbundle because upstream does not support using an external/system copy, you are required to publicly contact upstream (e.g. via a GitHub issue) requesting that support. - The Python bindings still have a license problem, as they claim to be MIT-licensed but lack a license/copyright statement. I see there is now an upstream bug report about this: https://github.com/vstakhov/libucl/issues/252. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1936425] Review Request: python-docs-theme - theme for Python documentation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936425
Tomáš Hrnčiar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Tomáš Hrnčiar ---
This package is APPROVED.
One small nitpick, which doesn't prevent package approval. Consider removing
%pypi_name macro. As mhroncok mentioned in jaraco.path package review [0], it
is not likely that name will change in the future and spec file will be easier
to read without it. We discussed this also in private and Miro explained to me
that some time ago, it was popular to macronize everything in spec files. But
it's up to you, it's just a suggestion.
[0] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1935255#c7
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: 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 must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not
[Bug 1936414] Review Request: cotila - Compile-time Linear Algebra Header only library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936414 Vasiliy Glazov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vasc...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|vasc...@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1936414] Review Request: cotila - Compile-time Linear Algebra Header only library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936414 alexfa...@yandex.ru changed: What|Removed |Added Comment|0 |updated --- Comment #0 has been edited --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/alexfails/cotila/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02059452-cotila/cotila.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/alexfails/cotila/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02059452-cotila/cotila-1.2.1-1.fc35.src.rpm Description: Cotila is a C++ header-only library that provides a set of linear algebra functions in C++ intended for use during compile time. All functions available in Cotila are constexpr, meaning they can be used at compile-time to generate constants and lookup tables in a type-safe, readable, and maintainable manner. Fedora Account System Username: alexfails -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1919606] Review Request: rnnoise - Recurrent neural network for audio noise reduction
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919606 Ben Cotton changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bcot...@redhat.com Blocks||182235 (FE-Legal) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182235 [Bug 182235] Fedora Legal Tracker -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1922315] Review Request: wdt - Warp speed Data Transfer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922315 Ben Cotton changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bcot...@redhat.com Blocks||182235 (FE-Legal) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182235 [Bug 182235] Fedora Legal Tracker -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1922315] Review Request: wdt - Warp speed Data Transfer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922315
--- Comment #4 from Jaroslav Škarvada ---
- Is there any need for the static subpackage? We shouldn't ship static libs
without strong reason, e.g. from the packaging guidelines [1]:
"In general, packagers SHOULD NOT ship static libraries."
- wdt-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit
/usr/lib64/libwdt_min.so.1.32.1910230 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5
This is not good for shared library, it should be reported to upstream.
Generally, API errors shouldn't terminate the main program. But this is not
review blocker.
- Source0:
https://github.com/facebook/wdt/archive/%{commit}.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{commit}.tar.gz
This could be simplified to:
Source0:
https://github.com/facebook/wdt/archive/%{commit}/%{name}-%{commit}.tar.gz
- https://github.com/facebook/wdt/blob/master/PATENTS
This pose additional constraints to the license (line 14). Although I
personally think it's OK, I opened fedora-legal ticket [2] to be 100% sure.
[1]
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_packaging_static_libraries
[2]
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/le...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/2AVHXQD3C2JBSZQT7E6HK3HHQ4O5KBDV/
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1933988] Review Request: nativejit - Library for high-performance just-in-time compilation of expressions involving C data structures
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933988
c...@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #17 from c...@musicinmybrain.net ---
I’m not sure that requiring all of CMake from -devel to own the directory is
the right approach. Is the goal to support EPEL7, where this package is not
available? If so, it seems like it would be better to conditionalize it:
%if 0%{?epel} == 7
Requires: cmake%{?_isa}
%else
Requires: cmake-filesystem
%endif
Actually, what I would do is
%if 0%{?epel} != 7
Requires: cmake-filesystem
%endif
and then in %files devel, co-own the directory on EPEL7:
%if 0%{?epel} == 7
%dir %{_libdir}/cmake/
%endif
That said, I’ll go ahead and approve the package as-is. Thanks for working
through all of these details.
If you have the chance to review one of mine, would you mind doing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936138? I need it for unbundling
from grpc. It’s a header-only C library that shouldn’t take long to review.
Thanks!
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1936425] Review Request: python-docs-theme - theme for Python documentation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936425 Tomáš Hrnčiar 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1936425] Review Request: python-docs-theme - theme for Python documentation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936425 Karolina Surma changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1936425] Review Request: python-docs-theme - theme for Python documentation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936425 Karolina Surma changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|thrnc...@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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1935255] Review Request: python-jaraco-path - cross platform hidden file detection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1935255 --- Comment #11 from Tomáš Hrnčiar --- Apologies, disregard previous links. I made a couple of minor changes. https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/thrnciar/python-jaraco-path/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02060038-python-jaraco-path/python-jaraco-path.spec https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/thrnciar/python-jaraco-path/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02060038-python-jaraco-path/python-jaraco-path-3.3.1-1.fc35.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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1936425] New: Review Request: python-docs-theme - theme for Python documentation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936425 Bug ID: 1936425 Summary: Review Request: python-docs-theme - theme for Python documentation Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ksu...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lbalhar/docs/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02060021-python-docs-theme/python-docs-theme.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lbalhar/docs/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02060021-python-docs-theme/python-docs-theme-2020.12-1.fc35.src.rpm Description: This is the theme for Python documentation. Fedora Account System Username: ksurma This is my first package and I need a sponsor. I've been so far active as a package reviewer for https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1935255 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1922315] Review Request: wdt - Warp speed Data Transfer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922315
--- Comment #3 from Gabriel Gaspar Becker ---
Fedora 35 (rawhide) scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=63328734
Requests:
1) Please add comment explaining why this package has to use a specific commit
hash
2) There is a typo in the Summary of libs subpackage. ibraries -> libraries
3) Rpmlint is complaining about, please solve it or add a waiver:
wdt.src:119: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib
wdt.src:128: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/*.a
Suggestions:
1) I have run tests a couple of times through koji builds and noticed that
x86_64 always completes successfully.
Did you have the same experience? If yes, the tests could be enabled on this
architecture so it would at least verify
in one of them.
e.g.: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=63339323
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised"
License". 160 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /tmp/1922315-wdt/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[-]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if
present.
Note: Package has .a files: wdt-static.
[Bug 1935255] Review Request: python-jaraco-path - cross platform hidden file detection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1935255 --- Comment #10 from Tomáš Hrnčiar --- Hello Karolina, here is the updated spec file, thank you. https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/thrnciar/python-jaraco-path/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02060023-python-jaraco-path/python-jaraco-path.spec https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/thrnciar/python-jaraco-path/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02060023-python-jaraco-path/python-jaraco-path-3.3.1-1.fc35.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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1936414] New: Review Request: cotila - Compile-time Linear Algebra Header only library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936414 Bug ID: 1936414 Summary: Review Request: cotila - Compile-time Linear Algebra Header only library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: alexfa...@yandex.ru QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/alexfails/cotila/ SRPM URL: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/alexfails/cotila/ Description: Cotila is a C++ header-only library that provides a set of linear algebra functions in C++ intended for use during compile time. All functions available in Cotila are constexpr, meaning they can be used at compile-time to generate constants and lookup tables in a type-safe, readable, and maintainable manner. Fedora Account System Username: alexfails -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1917075] Review Request: notekit - Hierarchical markdown notetaking application with tablet support
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1917075
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- You should check the metainfo filein %install or %check:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AppData/#_app_data_validate_usage
appstream-util validate-relax --nonet
%{buildroot}%{_metainfodir}/*.metainfo.xml
- And the desktop file:
desktop-file-validate %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/applications/%{uuid}.desktop
- Install the file 'Charter license.txt' with %license in %files:
%license LICENSE 'data/fonts/Charter license.txt'
- Add the license breakdown aboe the License: field
- Don't glob the entire directory:
%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/*
instead:
%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/*/apps/%{uuid}.*
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
file-validate if there is such a file.
- If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %license.
Note: License file Charter license.txt is not marked as %license
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or
later", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later". 74 files
have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/notekit/review-notekit/licensecheck.txt
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128(redeclipse, qmmp, keepassx, lammps-
data, sxiv, xchm, qucs, klatexformula, freedroidrpg, flatcam, hicolor-
icon-theme, yokadi, wesnoth-data, vacuum-im),
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128/apps(redeclipse, qmmp, keepassx,
lammps-data, sxiv, xchm, alsa-tools, qucs, klatexformula,
freedroidrpg, flatcam, hicolor-icon-theme, yokadi, wesnoth-data,
vacuum-im), /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable(qtl866, dxf2gcode, qmmp,
keepassx, wdisplays, eom, autokey-common, pdfmod, qucs, tuxanci,
klatexformula, freedroidrpg, fedora-logos, hicolor-icon-theme, lxqt-
powermanagement, massif-visualizer, swappy),
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps(qtl866, dxf2gcode, qmmp,
keepassx, wdisplays, eom, autokey-common, pdfmod, qucs, tuxanci,
klatexformula, freedroidrpg, fedora-logos, hicolor-icon-theme, swappy,
massif-visualizer)
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc
[Bug 1935255] Review Request: python-jaraco-path - cross platform hidden file detection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1935255 --- Comment #9 from Miro Hrončok --- > I always struggle to use the correct GitHub URL's when working with archives. The URLs that work are: https://github.com///archive/.zip https://github.com///archive/.tar.gz https://github.com///archive//.zip https://github.com///archive//.tar.gz I consider this one is the optimal one: https://github.com///archive//-.tar.gz -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
