[Bug 1356552] Review Request: php-onelogin-php-saml - SAML support for PHP softwares
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356552 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System --- php-onelogin-php-saml-2.9.1-3.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1380528] Review Request: multicat - Simple and efficient multicast and transport stream manipulation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1380528 --- Comment #2 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) --- Thx for the quick 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
[Bug 1366355] Review Request: acme-tiny - Tiny auditable ACME script for Let's Encrypt
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366355 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|ON_QA --- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System --- acme-tiny-0.1-10.20160810git5a7b4e7.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 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-b72c96ecee -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1366047] Review Request: tss2 - IBM's TSS 2.0
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ON_QA --- Comment #45 from Fedora Update System --- tss2-713-7.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 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-2016-20df2ce477 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1327981] Review Request: python-ipykernel - IPython Kernel for Jupyter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327981 Mukundan Ragavan changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1382527 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382527 [Bug 1382527] broken dependency in rawhide -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1360482] Review Request: nextcloud - a private, secure way to share and access files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1360482 --- Comment #11 from James Hogarth --- This has been updated to 10.0.1 in the COPR and for this review. Note that it is required to have OwnCloud 9.1 if you want to migrate to NextCloud ... this has been built and is awaiting pushing to testing in Fedora. EPEL is pending some fixes to patches before it gets an update Spec: https://jhogarth.fedorapeople.org/nextcloud/nextcloud.spec SRPM: https://jhogarth.fedorapeople.org/nextcloud/nextcloud-10.0.1-1.fc26.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
[Bug 1371502] Review Request: Siril - Astronomical image (pre-) processing program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1371502 --- Comment #4 from Christian Dersch --- Seems to be possible to build without ffms2 => I'll investigate for an update -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1371502] Review Request: Siril - Astronomical image (pre-) processing program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1371502 Christian Dersch changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lupi...@mailbox.org --- Comment #3 from Christian Dersch --- Is ffms2 really required? We have this old version 0.8 in offifial repo, would be nice if it could be updated… But as Igor mentioned: ffmpeg would be 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
[Bug 1357728] Review Request: libcint - general GTO integrals for quantum chemistry
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1357728 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System --- libcint-2.8.7-3.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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1348162] Review Request: rubygem-net-dns - Pure Ruby DNS library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348162 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- rubygem-net-dns-0.8.0-1.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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1357724] Review Request: qcint - general GTO integrals for quantum chemistry
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1357724 --- Comment #33 from Fedora Update System --- qcint-1.8.6-1.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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1366047] Review Request: tss2 - IBM's TSS 2.0
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047 --- Comment #44 from l...@us.ibm.com --- (In reply to Tomas Mraz from comment #37) > Also note that we are moving to OpenSSL-1.1.0 in rawhide very soon, so > please work on making the tss2 compile against it. > The developer of the package, Kenneth Goldman has expressed the following concern: "..this is a huge task. 1.1 is not at all backward compatible with 1.0, and will likely break almost everything, not just the TSS." "It's not just a recompile. It's a major redesign. The issue is that they decided to make many structures opaque, and so applications like the TSS (and the TPM) that require manipulation of key material change completely. For example, a typical case, going from an RSA TPM key (n,d,e) to an openssl key structure. 1.0 - direct access to RSA structure using BIGNUMs, no setter and getter API 1.1 - RSA structure is opaque, setters and getters implemented 1.0 is on long term support, and they will likely coexist for many years" -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1366047] Review Request: tss2 - IBM's TSS 2.0
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047 --- Comment #43 from l...@us.ibm.com --- The builds were successful, both on rawhide and f25: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=23163 I've submitted an update for the package (as this is later "Branched") via the Bodhi web interface. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1380528] Review Request: multicat - Simple and efficient multicast and transport stream manipulation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1380528
Randy Barlow changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Randy Barlow ---
Approved! I'll just note that this package only builds on rawhide, due to the
bitstream-devel >= 1.1 requirement.
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]: 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: "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2)", "Unknown or generated". 8
files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/rbarlow/reviews/1380528-multicat/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[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 20480 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]: 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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD
[Bug 1271193] Review Request: osgi-compendium - Interfaces and Classes for use in compiling OSGi bundles
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1271193 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- osgi-compendium-6.0.0-1.fc25, osgi-core-6.0.0-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 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-2016-8cd8b793dd -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1381303] Review Request: perl-LaTeX-ToUnicode - Convert LaTeX commands to Unicode
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1381303 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- perl-BibTeX-Parser-0.69-1.fc25, perl-LaTeX-ToUnicode-0.04-1.fc25, texlive-2016-6.20160520.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 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-2016-50a2bc7997 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1381307] Review Request: perl-BibTeX-Parser - Pure Perl BibTeX parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1381307 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- perl-BibTeX-Parser-0.69-1.fc25, perl-LaTeX-ToUnicode-0.04-1.fc25, texlive-2016-6.20160520.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 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-2016-50a2bc7997 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1378341] Review Request: fedpkg-copr - copr dist-git client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378341 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |ON_QA Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |--- Keywords||Reopened --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- fedpkg-copr-0.8-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 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-2016-21a1ea762d -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1381892] Review Request: osgi-core - OSGi Core API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1381892 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- osgi-compendium-6.0.0-1.fc25, osgi-core-6.0.0-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 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-2016-8cd8b793dd -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1380528] Review Request: multicat - Simple and efficient multicast and transport stream manipulation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1380528 Randy Barlow changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ra...@electronsweatshop.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ra...@electronsweatshop.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
[Bug 1354113] Review Request: python-pytest-catchlog - py.test plugin to catch log messages ( fork of pytest-capturelog)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1354113 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System --- python-pytest-catchlog-1.2.2-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 505154] Tracker: Review Requests for Science and Technology related packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=505154 Bug 505154 depends on bug 1357728, which changed state. Bug 1357728 Summary: Review Request: libcint - general GTO integrals for quantum chemistry https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1357728 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1357724] Review Request: qcint - general GTO integrals for quantum chemistry
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1357724 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2016-10-06 16:20:50 --- Comment #32 from Fedora Update System --- qcint-1.8.6-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1357728] Review Request: libcint - general GTO integrals for quantum chemistry
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1357728 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2016-10-06 16:21:03 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- libcint-2.8.7-3.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 505154] Tracker: Review Requests for Science and Technology related packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=505154 Bug 505154 depends on bug 1357724, which changed state. Bug 1357724 Summary: Review Request: qcint - general GTO integrals for quantum chemistry https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1357724 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1348959] Review Request: srandrd - A simple randr daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348959 Guido Aulisi changed: What|Removed |Added CC||guido.aul...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Guido Aulisi --- Link are not working, forbidden by server -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1359914] Review Request: lollypop - Music player for GNOME
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359914 --- Comment #11 from MartinKG --- Spec URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/lollypop.spec SRPM URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/lollypop-0.9.209-1.fc24.src.rpm %changelog * Thu Oct 06 2016 Martin Gansser - 0.9.209-1 * Update to 0.9.209 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1373218] Review Request: zstd - Zstd compression library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1373218
--- Comment #20 from Igor Gnatenko ---
(In reply to Pádraig Brady from comment #19)
> zstd-1.1.0-2 is built now containing pzstd
>
> pzstd is not available on el6 due to requiring c++11,
who cares about el6 in 2016
> and is only available on x86 due to test instability on arm platforms at
> least
You can do something like:
make check \
%ifarch %{arm}
|| :
%else
;
%endif
>
> I'll let zstd-1.1.0-1 propagate fully before pushing this
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1244657] Review Request: asynchbase - An alternative HBase client library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1244657 --- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo --- Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/asynchbase.spec SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/asynchbase-1.7.2-1.fc24.src.rpm - update to 1.7.2 Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15973942 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1373218] Review Request: zstd - Zstd compression library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1373218 --- Comment #19 from Pádraig Brady --- zstd-1.1.0-2 is built now containing pzstd pzstd is not available on el6 due to requiring c++11, and is only available on x86 due to test instability on arm platforms at least I'll let zstd-1.1.0-1 propagate fully before pushing this -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1366411] Review Request: fedora-rpm-macros - Miscellaneous Fedora RPM macros
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366411 --- Comment #11 from Pavel Raiskup --- Thanks for FPC ticket! https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/653 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1382367] Review Request: compat-openssl10 - Previous version of OpenSSL library for compatibility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382367 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/compat-openssl10 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1382367] Review Request: compat-openssl10 - Previous version of OpenSSL library for compatibility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382367 --- Comment #5 from Tomas Mraz --- OK, will do. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1348162] Review Request: rubygem-net-dns - Pure Ruby DNS library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348162 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- rubygem-net-dns-0.8.0-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1382367] Review Request: compat-openssl10 - Previous version of OpenSSL library for compatibility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382367 Kalev Lember changed: What|Removed |Added CC||klem...@redhat.com --- Comment #4 from Kalev Lember --- Could you also add "Conflicts: openssl < 1:1.1.0" so that the dep solver knows it can't install openssl 1.0 and compat-openssl10 packages together (it would run into file conflicts)? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1382367] Review Request: compat-openssl10 - Previous version of OpenSSL library for compatibility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382367 --- Comment #3 from Tomas Mraz --- I'll remove Buildroot and %clean section. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1382367] Review Request: compat-openssl10 - Previous version of OpenSSL library for compatibility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382367 Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1382367] Review Request: compat-openssl10 - Previous version of OpenSSL library for compatibility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382367
--- Comment #2 from Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
= 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.
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]: %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.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 51200 bytes in 4 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: 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 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 =
(Since this is a legacy/compat package I ignore new rules)
Generic:
[-]: Buildroot is not present
Note: Invalid buildroot found: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-root
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
[-]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[-]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: %clean present but not required
[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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in compat-
openssl10-debuginfo
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should comp
[Bug 1382367] Review Request: compat-openssl10 - Previous version of OpenSSL library for compatibility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382367 Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1382367] Review Request: compat-openssl10 - Previous version of OpenSSL library for compatibility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382367 --- Comment #1 from Tomas Mraz --- I've updated the package to 1.0.2j version and modified the Summary. Spec URL: https://people.redhat.com/tmraz/compat-openssl10/compat-openssl10.spec SRPM URL: https://people.redhat.com/tmraz/compat-openssl10/compat-openssl10-1.0.2j-1.fc26.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
[Bug 1382367] Review Request: compat-openssl10 - Previous version of OpenSSL library for compatibility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382367 Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nmavr...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|nmavr...@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
[Bug 1378860] Review Request: jetty-setuid - SetUID support for jetty
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378860 --- Comment #7 from Mikolaj Izdebski --- Koji scratch build passed: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15968879 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1378860] Review Request: jetty-setuid - SetUID support for jetty
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378860
--- Comment #6 from Mikolaj Izdebski ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
[x] rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the
build produces. The output should be posted in the review.
[x] The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines.
[x] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[!] The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
* Compilers used to build packages must honor the applicable
compiler flags set in the system rpm configuration. See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags
* Source URLs should point to git commits, not branches
(jetty-9.3.x) and not tags (%{name}-%{version}). See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Git_Hosting_Services
* JNI shared objects MUST be placed in %{_libdir}/%{name}, not under
%{_jnidir}. See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Guideline
* The javadoc subpackage MUST be declared noarch even if main
package is architecture specific. See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation
[!] The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and
meet the Licensing Guidelines.
License text should be taken from "reliable and canonical sources".
Branches on Github are neither reliable nor cannonical. See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
[x] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[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 must be included in %doc.
[x] The spec file must be written in American English.
[x] The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[x] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use
sha256sum for this task as it is used by the sources file once
imported into git. If no upstream URL can be specified for this
package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with
this.
[x] The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms
on at least one primary architecture.
[x] If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the
spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST
have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the
package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug
number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding
ExcludeArch line.
[x] All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging
Guidelines; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional.
Apply common sense.
[x] The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using
the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly
forbidden.
[x] Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared
library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's
default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[x] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[x] If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
state this fact in the request for review, along with the
rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without
this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker.
[x] A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does
not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a
package which does create that directory.
[x] A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in
specific situations.)
[x] Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be
set with executable permissions, for example.
[!] Each package must consistently use macros.
xmvn-config.xml should not hardcode path to %{_libdir}, but use RPM macros.
[x] The package must contain code, or permissible content.
[x] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement,
but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or
quantity).
[x] If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the
program must run properly if it is not present.
[x] Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[x] Development files must be in a -devel package.
[x] In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require t
[Bug 1382367] New: Review Request: compat-openssl10 - Previous version of OpenSSL library for compatibility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382367 Bug ID: 1382367 Summary: Review Request: compat-openssl10 - Previous version of OpenSSL library for compatibility Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: tm...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://people.redhat.com/tmraz/compat-openssl10/compat-openssl10.spec SRPM URL: https://people.redhat.com/tmraz/compat-openssl10/compat-openssl10-1.0.2i-3.fc26.src.rpm Description: The OpenSSL toolkit provides support for secure communications between machines. This version of OpenSSL package contains only the libraries and is provided for compatibility with previous releases. This package will be used during the transition of applications from 1.0 API to 1.1 API and it will be kept for third party applications for a few Fedora releases. See also: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/OpenSSL110 Fedora Account System Username: tmraz -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1381548] Review Request: mariadb-connector-odbc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1381548
--- Comment #3 from Petr Menšík ---
License and doc are good.
If it is mariadb plugin, it should reside in mariadb plugin directory.
If you run ldd on libmaodbc.so, it will not find libmariadb.so.2. As the
package depends on it anyway, I suggest you add Requires:
mariadb-connector-c%{?_isa}
Then make libmaodbc.so install into directory %{_libdir}/mariadb. If it is not
in %{_libdir} directly, I do not care about soname.
You should add %{_libdir}/mariadb/ into %files section of package
mariadb-connector-c. Current version has unowned directory, that will not be
removed after uninstallation.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1352215] Review Request: llvm3.7 -- Versioned LLVM 3.7
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352215 --- Comment #13 from Milan Bouchet-Valat --- Do you need it there? If so, I can backport it of course. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1379165] Review Request: libslz - StateLess Zip
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379165 --- Comment #11 from Dridi Boukelmoune --- Spec URL: https://dridi.fedorapeople.org/review/libslz.spec SRPM URL: https://dridi.fedorapeople.org/review/libslz-1.1.0-1.fc24.src.rpm I decided to fix it with a patch instead of the install scriptlet, this way once it's merge upstream it will ftbfs and I can't forget to remove 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
[Bug 1382333] Review Request: python-axolotl - Python port of libaxolotl-android
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382333 Christian Dersch changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1382332 --- Comment #1 from Christian Dersch --- Requires review of python-axolotl-curve25519 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382332 [Bug 1382332] Review Request: python-axolotl-curve25519 - curve25519 with ed25519 signatures -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1382332] Review Request: python-axolotl-curve25519 - curve25519 with ed25519 signatures
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382332 Christian Dersch changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1382333 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382333 [Bug 1382333] Review Request: python-axolotl - Python port of libaxolotl-android -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1382333] New: Review Request: python-axolotl - Python port of libaxolotl-android
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382333 Bug ID: 1382333 Summary: Review Request: python-axolotl - Python port of libaxolotl-android Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: lupi...@mailbox.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://lupinix.fedorapeople.org/review/python-axolotl.spec SRPM URL: https://lupinix.fedorapeople.org/review/python-axolotl-0.1.35-1.fc25.src.rpm Description: Python port of libaxolotl-android, useful for the XMPP client gajim to get OMEMO support Fedora Account System Username: lupinix Thank you very much for review in advance! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1382332] New: Review Request: python-axolotl-curve25519 - curve25519 with ed25519 signatures
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382332 Bug ID: 1382332 Summary: Review Request: python-axolotl-curve25519 - curve25519 with ed25519 signatures Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: lupi...@mailbox.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://lupinix.fedorapeople.org/review/python-axolotl-curve25519.spec SRPM URL: https://lupinix.fedorapeople.org/review/python-axolotl-curve25519-0.1-1.fc25.src.rpm Description: curve25519 with ed25519 signatures, required by python-axolotl which can enhance the XMPP client gajim for OMEMO Fedora Account System Username: lupinix Koji scratch build (rawhide): http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15967569 Thank you very much for review in advance! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1381935] Review Request: python-distro - Linux Distribution - a Linux OS platform information API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1381935 --- Comment #7 from Miroslav Suchý --- > A simpler way to do the %install phase is to simply re-order it ... Done. > The conditional inside the Python 3 subpackage conditional for the files list > is redundant. Fixed. > * Your rpm changelog is in the wrong format (lacks email address) a) I have misconfigured Tito (which create that entries for me). It have email now. b) The email address is not mandatory. It is actually optional. Albeit most maintainers use it. > and has a duplicate entry rather than unique entries. I actually done so many releases. Only after that I found some problem so I created another release. So it really reflect what I have been doing. I prefer it over keeping the same release number for all intermittent releases. Updated: Spec URL: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/python-distro/python-distro.spec SRPM URL: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/python-distro/python-distro-1.0.0-6.fc24.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
[Bug 1352215] Review Request: llvm3.7 -- Versioned LLVM 3.7
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352215 --- Comment #12 from Jens Petersen --- Thank you! How about building for F24 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
[Bug 1381548] Review Request: mariadb-connector-odbc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1381548 --- Comment #2 from Michal Schorm --- Second review request: I believe all (atleast most) issues were resolved. Fast was made check with $> fedora-review -b 1381548 --mock-options="-r fedora-rawhide-x86_64" * %licence and %doc files repaired to use proper macros and remove duplicates. * SPECfile match the one in SRPM * %check not present since output is plugin library only. * make command removed, since %cmake does its job * unversioned .so file is left in main package, since it is not devel file and directly provides functionality of this package. * version not needed, since this library works as mariadb plugin _ SPEC and SRPM urls did not change, the now point to updated version. Old version can be found on GitHub in "Version 1" branch. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1259486] Review Request: libglvnd - The GL Vendor-Neutral Dispatch library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259486 Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2016-10-06 04:51:39 --- Comment #23 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) --- package built. thx 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1380156] Review Request: php-webmozart-path-util - Cross-platform utilities for file paths
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1380156 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- php-webmozart-assert-1.1.0-1.el6, php-webmozart-path-util-2.3.0-1.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-ea9df2843e -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1380155] Review Request: php-webmozart-assert - Assertions to validate method input/ output with nice error messages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1380155 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- php-webmozart-assert-1.1.0-1.el6, php-webmozart-path-util-2.3.0-1.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-ea9df2843e -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1366047] Review Request: tss2 - IBM's TSS 2.0
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047 --- Comment #42 from Tomas Mraz --- Yes, it is sponsored into Packagers now. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
