[Bug 1348775] Review Request: python-unidiff - Python library to parse and interact with unified diffs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348775 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- python-unidiff-0.5.2-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-0441bcd0c8 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1331818] Review Request: singularity - Portable application stack packaging and runtime utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331818 --- Comment #33 from Fedora Update System --- singularity-2.0-9.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-71231fe927 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1350943] Review Request: python-releases - A Sphinx extension for changelog manipulation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350943 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- python-releases-1.2.0-3.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-6c6d7e4b67 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1348775] Review Request: python-unidiff - Python library to parse and interact with unified diffs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348775 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- python-unidiff-0.5.2-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-6df510b512 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1331818] Review Request: singularity - Portable application stack packaging and runtime utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331818 --- Comment #32 from Fedora Update System --- singularity-2.0-9.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-ee03c969d6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1350943] Review Request: python-releases - A Sphinx extension for changelog manipulation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350943 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- python-releases-1.2.0-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-b397266058 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1331818] Review Request: singularity - Portable application stack packaging and runtime utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331818 --- Comment #31 from Fedora Update System --- singularity-2.0-9.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-b08ea02c43 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1331818] Review Request: singularity - Portable application stack packaging and runtime utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331818 --- Comment #30 from Fedora Update System --- singularity-2.0-9.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-7d10faed99 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1331818] Review Request: singularity - Portable application stack packaging and runtime utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331818 --- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System --- singularity-2.0-9.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-9ad1b969a2 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1331818] Review Request: singularity - Portable application stack packaging and runtime utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331818 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System --- singularity-2.0-9.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-f2fd1c8bbc -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1352065] Review Request: gst-transcoder - GStreamer Transcoding API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352065 Luya Tshimbalanga changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |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 https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1352065] Review Request: gst-transcoder - GStreamer Transcoding API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352065
Luya Tshimbalanga changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||l...@fedoraproject.org
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|l...@fedoraproject.org
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Luya Tshimbalanga ---
Here is the review
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: 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: "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "LGPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or
generated". 4 files have unknown license.
[Note] These 4 files are generated.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/include/gstreamer-1.0/gst/transcoder
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/include/gstreamer-1.0,
/usr/lib64/girepository-1.0, /usr/include/gstreamer-1.0/gst,
/usr/include/gstreamer-1.0/gst/transcoder, /usr/share/gir-1.0
[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
[-]: 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.
[Note] It will be nice upstream renamed the tarball to gst-transcoder
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: 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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
[Bug 1346018] Review Request: jmake - Make utility for large Java projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1346018 Raphael Groner changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST --- Comment #14 from Raphael Groner --- Thanks for the review! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1346018] Review Request: jmake - Make utility for large Java projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1346018 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #13 from gil cattaneo --- (In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #12) > Thanks. Reported license issue to upstream. > https://github.com/pantsbuild/jmake/issues/24 > > Anyways, that should not block the review. Package license is for built > binary, we see questionable test files only. The License: field refers to > the licenses of the contents of the binary rpm. 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 https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1346018] Review Request: jmake - Make utility for large Java projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1346018 --- Comment #12 from Raphael Groner --- Thanks. Reported license issue to upstream. https://github.com/pantsbuild/jmake/issues/24 Anyways, that should not block the review. Package license is for built binary, we see questionable test files only. The License: field refers to the licenses of the contents of the binary 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 https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1213065] Review Request: hexer - ncurses-based binary editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1213065 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- hexer-0.2.3-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1213065] Review Request: hexer - ncurses-based binary editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1213065 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2016-07-02 11:29:35 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1343161] Review Request: cryptacular - Java Library that complement to the Bouncy Castle crypto API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343161 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2016-07-02 11:26:34 -- 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 https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1344245] Review Request: vex - Tool for executing commands in Python virtualenv without activate/ deactivate it
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344245 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- vex-0.0.18-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1343161] Review Request: cryptacular - Java Library that complement to the Bouncy Castle crypto API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343161 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- cryptacular-1.1.0-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1347006] Review Request: python-sphinxcontrib-spelling - A spelling checker for Sphinx-based documentation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347006 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2016-07-02 11:26:38 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1344245] Review Request: vex - Tool for executing commands in Python virtualenv without activate/ deactivate it
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344245 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2016-07-02 11:26:22 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1350143] Review Request: fmt - Small, safe and fast formating library for C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350143
--- Comment #2 from Antonio Trande ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
- Package does not own /usr/share/cmake/fmt /usr/include/fmt
- Please, unbundle font in usr/share/doc/fmt-doc/html/_static/fonts
- Why a pre-release tag ? (0.1%{?dist})
- Please, leave comments about the patches.
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[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: "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 102
files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/sagitter/1350143-fmt/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/cmake/fmt, /usr/include/fmt
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/cmake,
/usr/share/cmake/fmt, /usr/include/fmt
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[!]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
Note: Package contains font files
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in fmt-doc
, fmt-debuginfo
[x]: Pa
[Bug 505154] Tracker: Review Requests for Science and Technology related packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=505154 Milan Bouchet-Valat changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1352215 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352215 [Bug 1352215] Review Request: llvm37 -- Versioned LLVM 3.7 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1352215] Review Request: llvm37 -- Versioned LLVM 3.7
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352215 Milan Bouchet-Valat changed: What|Removed |Added CC||or...@cora.nwra.com, ||peter...@redhat.com Blocks||505154 (FE-SCITECH) --- Comment #1 from Milan Bouchet-Valat --- Jens, Orion: Since you've followed the review for llvm33, you're probably in the best position to review this new one. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=505154 [Bug 505154] Tracker: Review Requests for Science and Technology related packages -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1352215] New: Review Request: llvm37 -- Versioned LLVM 3.7
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352215 Bug ID: 1352215 Summary: Review Request: llvm37 -- Versioned LLVM 3.7 Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: nalimi...@club.fr QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://nalimilan.fedorapeople.org/llvm37.spec SRPM URL: https://nalimilan.fedorapeople.org/llvm37-3.7.1-3.fc24.src.rpm Description: LLVM is a compiler infrastructure designed for compile-time, link-time, runtime, and idle-time optimization of programs from arbitrary programming languages. The compiler infrastructure includes mirror sets of programming tools as well as libraries with equivalent functionality. Fedora Account System Username: nalimilan Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14740294 This package is based on the llvm35 .spec file, updated to build with LLVM 3.7. I'm going to need it soon to package Julia 0.5.0 in rawhide. Then I will retire the llvm33 package, which will no longer have any reverse dependencies. The package includes several patches which are needed by Julia. These have been submitted upstream, and are often included in LLVM 3.8.1 (which doesn't work with Julia yet). I've been using it for several months in a Copr without issues. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1352141] Review Request: docker-latest - Automates deployment of containerized applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352141 --- Comment #2 from Daniel Walsh --- Yes the basic idea which we have implemented in Centos and RHEL is to ship two versions of docker, the default one which can be used by OpenShift/K8s and one that has the latest supported bits. We need both packages to be installable at the same time on atomic host. OpenShift has blocked us from updating the version of docker in older releases of fedora for several months, because the update would break their use cases. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1350143] Review Request: fmt - Small, safe and fast formating library for C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350143 Antonio Trande changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||anto.tra...@gmail.com Blocks||1334067 Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|anto.tra...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1334067 [Bug 1334067] cppformat-3.0.0 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 https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1280048] Review Request: nodejs-array-map - `[].map(f) ` for older browsers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1280048 Jared Smith changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2016-07-02 08:05:04 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1342749] Review Request: wildfly-core - The core runtime of WildFly
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1342749 --- Comment #7 from gil cattaneo --- Thanks for the review! create new SCM requests: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/6214 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/6215 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1342749] Review Request: wildfly-core - The core runtime of WildFly
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1342749 Jonny Heggheim changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) | Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183 [Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker 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 https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1342749] Review Request: wildfly-core - The core runtime of WildFly
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1342749 Jonny Heggheim changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1340513] Review Request: gap-pkg-gbnp - Computing Gröbner bases of noncommutative polynomials
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1340513 Till Hofmann changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Till Hofmann --- Approved. Thanks for packaging! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
