[Bug 1199693] Review Request: pcp-pmda-cpp - C++ library for PCP PMDAs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199693 --- Comment #36 from Paul Colby --- (In reply to Nathan Scott from comment #27) > Hmm, OK, thanks Michael. I've reset that unusual flags setting, hopefully > that gets some additional eyeballs on this one. Hi Nathan. It seems that did not actually work, as this ticket is being listed (I assume incorrectly) on the "Tickets under review" page (http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/REVIEW.html), with assignee "(Nobody)". Based on Michael Schwendt comments above (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199693#c26), as well as https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process as I see it either: 1. the fedora review flag should be cleared, indicating that this ticket is back to needing sponsoring (in which case the assignee stays blank until a sponsor is found); or 2. the ticket should be assigned to you (assuming you're willing / empowered to review it), and the flag left as "?" to indicate that you are the current reviewer; or 3. change the flag to "+" to indicate that review has passed (if it has). In which case I'm not sure what the assignee should be (the docs are unclear). I'm perfectly happy for you (or someone with appropriate authority) to change the ticket to any of those states, and I'll work to progress it from there. But as it is, I suspect its still in a not-quite-valid state as far as the Package Review Process is defined. 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
[Bug 1199693] Review Request: pcp-pmda-cpp - C++ library for PCP PMDAs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199693 Nathan Scott changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mgood...@redhat.com --- Comment #37 from Nathan Scott --- Hi Paul, I'm literally walking out the door to go on holiday :| ... I've CC'd Mark who may be able to help here in my absence. I tend to agree though - something's not right with this BZ - should be long-since resolved. :( cheers. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1303349] Review Request: flyingsaucersattack - Shoot down the attacking UFOs and to save the city
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1303349 --- Comment #6 from Hans de Goede --- I don't see anything in the review I need to fix, did you forget to set the fedora-review flag to +, or ... ? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 708664] Review Request: jp2a - an utility for converting JPEG images to ASCII
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708664 Filip Szymański changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |NEW CC||fszyman...@onet.pl Resolution|WONTFIX |--- Keywords||Reopened --- Comment #15 from Filip Szymański --- Spec URL: https://fszymanski.fedorapeople.org/jp2a/jp2a.spec SRPM URL: https://fszymanski.fedorapeople.org/jp2a/jp2a-1.0.7-1.fc24.src.rpm Scratch: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16237643 COPR: http://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/fszymanski/jp2a/ Fedora Account System Username: fszymanski Hi guys, I would like to pick up this package (if it's possible). -- 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 708664] Review Request: jp2a - an utility for converting JPEG images to ASCII
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708664 Filip Szymański changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) | Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449 [Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter response should be blocking this bug. -- 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 1389695] New: Review Request: python-wcsaxes - A Python framework for plotting astronomical and geospatial data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389695 Bug ID: 1389695 Summary: Review Request: python-wcsaxes - A Python framework for plotting astronomical and geospatial data Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: sergio.pa...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://guaix.fis.ucm.es/~spr/fedora/python-wcsaxes.spec SRPM URL: https://guaix.fis.ucm.es/~spr/fedora/python-wcsaxes-0.9-1.fc24.src.rpm Description: WCSAxes is a framework for making plots of Astronomical data in Matplotlib. Fedora Account System Username: sergiopr -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1389016] Review Request: libxsmm - Library for small matrix-matrix multiplications on Intel x86_64 (e.g. for cp2k)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389016 --- Comment #9 from Dave Love --- (In reply to Hans Pabst from comment #8) > Thank you all for reviewing/maintaining this package! Apologies for not referring to it previously. I hadn't got round to making the bug report where I just have done before getting back to the review. Thanks for commenting. > I was looking at Dave's work/logs since he wrapped it up as a package for > the first time, and tried to "anticipate" what could be useful for his next > wrap. Over time this became (but is not limited to): It's likely I should have paid more attention to your changes... > * Fairly generic target (by default) when building the library (SSE3) to > cover a general Linux distribution i.e., critical code is CPUID dispatched. Unfortunately an SSE2 baseline is necessary for packaging. (There are actually AMD Barcelonas -- and older! -- still running here which don't have it, though they have a variety of sse4a.) > * Versioned .so files to adhere to standards (major, minor scheme). I don't know if it's intentional, but the .so links are the wrong way round, which causes confusion with ldconfig, and I don't think is specific to Fedora: see the patch for it in the package which I should probably have reported as well. > * Warnings during build for "sophisticated" (over-specified) build options, > which could have inadvertent effects e.g. OMP=1 when building the library. Should the options be changed, do you think? I'm still not sure whether OMP=1 is worthwhile. A problem with the build, which I've just fixed in response to what I'd missed in fedora-review, is that make install actually builds things, which meant sse3 and openmp were being used inadvertently. I haven't got round to finding out why, but have fixed it up in the spec. > However, this indirect interaction has some limits. Please do not hesitate > to bring up any issue or annoyance you would like to see fixed > (https://github.com/hfp/libxsmm/issues). As a side-note, the relatively > sophisticated GCC build flags are mostly paranoid and present due to "good > practice". Though, any critical code is either independent of the compiler > used (JIT) or hand-crafted. Thanks. I was assuming there was some highly-optimized C for which they were important -- life's too short to understand things at the level a packager probably should... > As a (likely repeated) comment: the library (under Linux) is agnostic with > respect to a specific LAPACK/BLAS implementation. Perhaps your (copr) > dependence on OpenBLAS is just to trigger a presence for *some* BLAS... Yes, but it's silly to use anything else, and the Makefile looks for openblas as far as I remember. I don't understand why rpmlint complains about the reference to dgemm (?), though. > I wonder about the item "Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. > Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files." - to me it looks like 3 > files with below 200KB in total. Thanks. It was meant to include the samples (which are large). Is that worthwhile? Otherwise, I agree. > If you don't mind, perhaps you guys can adjust the package description (see > below for convenience). This is because the functionality now covers deep > learning primitives, and small JIT generated convolutions as well. Fine for the description, but the summary is too long for the packaging-defined limit. (The current one says x86_64 because ix86 currently doesn't build.) How about something like Small dense or sparse matrix multiplications and convolutions for x86 I don't think the historical reference in the description is useful, but don't feel strongly about it, and I'd Anglicize a phrase or two. Thanks, and thanks to Intel for all the free software like this being made available recently, in contrast to some competitors. (Just a pity we're currently missing optimized KNL BLAS.) I'll wait for any more comments before putting up a new package. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1389016] Review Request: libxsmm - Library for small matrix-matrix multiplications on Intel x86_64 (e.g. for cp2k)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389016 --- Comment #10 from Hans Pabst --- > Unfortunately an SSE2 baseline is necessary for packaging. Well, SSE2 is "nothing" wrt 64-bit since it's already part of the 64-bit ABI. > There are actually AMD Barcelonas They support SSE3; no problem! > they have a variety of sse4a. which includes SSE3. I have selected SSE3 as a baseline on purpose to not exclude such systems. > -- and older! Hmm, for systems without SSE3 you need to go back pretty far. I doubt that any of those systems run 64-bit, and if -- they are unlikely interested in LIBXSMM. More important, they value of the library goes towards zero since JIT is only supported with AVX and beyond. Also, statically generating our SMM kernels won't help either since our baseline there is SSE3 as well (inline assembly). There is some value left, but it's more on the edge of what the library aims to provide. > I'm still not sure whether OMP=1 is worthwhile. Sorry my comment might have been misleading. The library warns if you use OMP=1 since it's meant to be agnostic wrt threading runtime. The OpenMP compiler flags is automatically applied only for libxsmmext, which is meant to keep the OpenMP dependency separate. In the early times of LIBXSMM, OMP=1 (when applied) meant to use OpenMP synchronization primitives for the code registry (instead of OS-level primitives or Pthreads). The warning I was mentioning is related to the latter. > Yes, but it's silly to use anything else There OpenBLAS is the default I am looking for (just learned people would take it in any case). However, RefLAPACK/BLAS is surprisingly good (I believe for small matrices it even better than OpenBLAS). But sure, relying on OpenBLAS makes much sense. > I don't understand why rpmlint complains about the reference to dgemm (?) This is a real dependency on the ?gemm_ symbol. Anyhow, this symbol is still satisfied by any kind BLAS (OpenBLAS, RefLAPACK/BLAS, MKL, ATLAS, etc.) > It was meant to include the samples (which are large). > Is that worthwhile? No it's not worth. People who want the dev-package would typically need to copy the sample source code anyways into a writable destination. If the sample source code would not compile then (or easy to get it to) -- the impression of the library will be ruined (which is not your problem :-). > Small dense or sparse matrix multiplications and convolutions for x86 Sure go ahead! I am not on particular words e.g., this NA Digest (http://www.netlib.org/na-digest-html/16/v16n38.html; search for LIBXSMM) says: "Library for small convolutions (Machine Learning), and small dense or sparse matrix multiplications." (which leaves out the mighty x86 ;-) > Just a pity we're currently missing optimized KNL BLAS. I guess the MKL community download is somewhat inconvenient? As a side-note, LIBXSMM makes some attempt to come up with regular BLAS sizes as well (status may be here: https://github.com/hfp/libxsmm/issues/99#issuecomment-255314392). First signs are the libxsmm_gemm_omp functions and the "blkgemm" sample code. A lot of work is still left. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1386735] Review Request: php-fedora-autoloader - Fedora Autoloader
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1386735 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System --- php-fedora-autoloader-0.2.0-2.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-f6b9b78cd3 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1386735] Review Request: php-fedora-autoloader - Fedora Autoloader
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1386735 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System --- php-fedora-autoloader-0.2.0-2.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-2016-0dbc1f0889 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1374137] Review Request: ghc-enclosed-exceptions - Catching all exceptions from within an enclosed computation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1374137 Randy Barlow changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED 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 1386735] Review Request: php-fedora-autoloader - Fedora Autoloader
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1386735 --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System --- php-fedora-autoloader-0.2.0-2.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-2016-1ade51bea8 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1381661] Review Request: obs-build - A generic package build script
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1381661 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- obs-build-20161025-231.1.1.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-f2a93a2fb3 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1060852] Review Request: flnet - Amateur Radio Net Control Station
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060852 --- Comment #17 from Richard Shaw --- SPEC: https://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/flnet.spec SRPM: https://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/flnet-7.3.1-1.fc24.src.rpm * Fri Oct 28 2016 Richard Shaw - 7.3.1-1 - Update to latest upstream release. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1374137] Review Request: ghc-enclosed-exceptions - Catching all exceptions from within an enclosed computation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1374137
Randy Barlow changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Randy Barlow ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 4 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/rbarlow/reviews/1374137-ghc-enclosed-exceptions/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]: 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
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 separat
[Bug 1199693] Review Request: pcp-pmda-cpp - C++ library for PCP PMDAs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199693 Michael Schwendt changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | --- Comment #38 from Michael Schwendt --- You could have cleared the fedora-review flag a long time ago after the explanation in earlier comments. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1389784] New: Review Request: python-scour - An SVG scrubber
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389784 Bug ID: 1389784 Summary: Review Request: python-scour - An SVG scrubber Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: limburg...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Description: An SVG scrubber SRPM: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/python-scour/python-scour-0.35-1.fc24.src.rpm SPEC: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/python-scour/python-scour.spec rpmlint errors on github sourceurl. Needed for inkscape. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1389784] Review Request: python-scour - An SVG scrubber
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389784 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1389772 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389772 [Bug 1389772] inkscape dependencies missing potrace, python-scour -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1387447] Review Request: php-sentry - PHP client for Sentry
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1387447 Remi Collet changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||fed...@famillecollet.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|fed...@famillecollet.com --- Comment #1 from Remi Collet --- Created attachment 1215024 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1215024&action=edit licensecheck.txt -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1387447] Review Request: php-sentry - PHP client for Sentry
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1387447 --- Comment #2 from Remi Collet --- Created attachment 1215025 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1215025&action=edit phpci.log phpCompatInfo version 5.0.1 DB version 1.14.0 built Oct 15 2016 18:25:40 CEST static analyze results -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1387447] Review Request: php-sentry - PHP client for Sentry
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1387447 --- Comment #3 from Remi Collet --- Created attachment 1215026 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1215026&action=edit review.txt Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1387447 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1387447] Review Request: php-sentry - PHP client for Sentry
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1387447
Remi Collet changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #4 from Remi Collet ---
Blockers:
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Should be BSD and ASL 2.0 with a comment about Serializer.php being ASL 2.0
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
php-cli missing (for /usr/bin/sentry)
Notice:
For now php-Monolog have
# "raven/raven": "^0.13"
%global raven_min_ver 0.13
%global raven_max_ver 1.0
Upstream have
"require-dev": {
"sentry/sentry": "^0.13",
And:
"suggest": {
"sentry/sentry": "Allow sending log messages to a Sentry server",
So, ensure version 1.5.0 is ok for Monolog.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this 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 1386735] Review Request: php-fedora-autoloader - Fedora Autoloader
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1386735 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System --- php-fedora-autoloader-0.2.0-2.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-2016-1e758eff5c -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1381661] Review Request: obs-build - A generic package build script
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1381661 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- obs-build-20161025-231.1.1.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-d1a6aec546 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1387447] Review Request: php-sentry - PHP client for Sentry
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1387447 --- Comment #5 from Remi Collet --- Just to check what composer pull (from monolog) - Installing sentry/sentry (0.13.0) Downloading: 100% -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1389016] Review Request: libxsmm - Library for small matrix-matrix multiplications on Intel x86_64 (e.g. for cp2k)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389016 --- Comment #11 from Dave Love --- (In reply to Hans Pabst from comment #10) > > Unfortunately an SSE2 baseline is necessary for packaging. > Well, SSE2 is "nothing" wrt 64-bit since it's already part of the 64-bit ABI. Yes, that's the point. This is a policy issue for packaging, not anything to do with practical reality for HPC. (However, there were first generation (?) opterons online here until a PSU blew recently...) > > There are actually AMD Barcelonas > They support SSE3; no problem! [Oh, I see it's included in "PNI" if I look at cpuid rather than cpuinfo.] > > I'm still not sure whether OMP=1 is worthwhile. > Sorry my comment might have been misleading. The library warns if you use > OMP=1 since it's meant to be agnostic wrt threading runtime. The OpenMP > compiler flags is automatically applied only for libxsmmext, which is meant > to keep the OpenMP dependency separate. In the early times of LIBXSMM, OMP=1 > (when applied) meant to use OpenMP synchronization primitives for the code > registry (instead of OS-level primitives or Pthreads). The warning I was > mentioning is related to the latter. > > > Yes, but it's silly to use anything else > There OpenBLAS is the default I am looking for (just learned people would > take it in any case). However, RefLAPACK/BLAS is surprisingly good (I > believe for small matrices it even better than OpenBLAS). But sure, relying > on OpenBLAS makes much sense. > > > I don't understand why rpmlint complains about the reference to dgemm (?) > This is a real dependency on the ?gemm_ symbol. Anyhow, this symbol is still > satisfied by any kind BLAS (OpenBLAS, RefLAPACK/BLAS, MKL, ATLAS, etc.) Yes, I just couldn't see why the warning was emitted when the blas is linked. > > It was meant to include the samples (which are large). > > Is that worthwhile? > No it's not worth. People who want the dev-package would typically need to > copy the sample source code anyways into a writable destination. If the > sample source code would not compile then (or easy to get it to) -- the > impression of the library will be ruined (which is not your problem :-). Examples from the distributed source are typically included in -doc rpms, or a separate -examples one, though I don't remember specific policy on that, and there's only any point if they are useful. However, I don't understand why the samples are included if they are problematic -- I'm doubtless mis-understanding. > > Small dense or sparse matrix multiplications and convolutions for x86 > Sure go ahead! I am not on particular words e.g., this NA Digest > (http://www.netlib.org/na-digest-html/16/v16n38.html; search for LIBXSMM) > says: > "Library for small convolutions (Machine Learning), and small dense or > sparse matrix multiplications." (which leaves out the mighty x86 ;-) OK. I assumed there was a desire to say "Intel" as much as possible and I only took that out of the summary to shorten it -- but slightly undo that by saying x86_64, as the packaging is specific. > > Just a pity we're currently missing optimized KNL BLAS. > I guess the MKL community download is somewhat inconvenient? It's obviously not usable for Fedora or OK for general use on a cluster. (I read the conditions, unlike most people...) > As a side-note, LIBXSMM makes some attempt to come up with regular BLAS > sizes as well (status may be here: > https://github.com/hfp/libxsmm/issues/99#issuecomment-255314392). First > signs are the libxsmm_gemm_omp functions and the "blkgemm" sample code. A > lot of work is still left. Thanks for the pointer (and the rest); I'll pass it on. A new srpm may have to wait until Monday 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
[Bug 1389091] Review Request: tang - Network Presence Binding Daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389091
Patrick Uiterwijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Patrick Uiterwijk ---
Package is APPROVED.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
= 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 successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: 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]: 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:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: 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.
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: 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]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has
[Bug 1382926] Review Request: perl-HTTP-MultiPartParser - HTTP MultiPart Parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382926 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/perl-HTTP-MultiPartParser -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1389091] Review Request: tang - Network Presence Binding Daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389091 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/tang -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1389784] Review Request: python-scour - An SVG scrubber
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389784 Neal Gompa changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ngomp...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ngomp...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1389784] Review Request: python-scour - An SVG scrubber
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389784
--- Comment #1 from Neal Gompa ---
The error for the GitHub Source URL is easy to fix.
You can change it to one of the following:
Source0: %{url}/archive/v%{version}/%{modname}-%{version}.tar.gz
or
Source0: %{url}/archive/v%{version}.tar.gz#/%{modname}-%{version}.tar.gz
Both are valid.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this 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 1389784] Review Request: python-scour - An SVG scrubber
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389784 --- Comment #2 from Jon Ciesla --- Thanks! SRPM: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/python-scour/python-scour-0.35-2.fc24.src.rpm SPEC: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/python-scour/python-scour.spec -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1389784] Review Request: python-scour - An SVG scrubber
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389784 --- Comment #3 from Neal Gompa --- The licensedir conditional at the top needs the extra "%" removed on the %doc, otherwise it defines "%license" as "%%doc", which doesn't work. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1389784] Review Request: python-scour - An SVG scrubber
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389784 --- Comment #4 from Neal Gompa --- Also, the conditional should be near the files list rather than the top. I forget why this is the case, but I think it was important. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1389784] Review Request: python-scour - An SVG scrubber
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389784 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla --- Fixed, same URLs. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1389784] Review Request: python-scour - An SVG scrubber
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389784 Neal Gompa changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Neal Gompa --- fedora-review is happy about the package (minus the manpage warning, which I'm ignoring). The package name, version, and licensing looks good. It obeys our guidelines for Python packaging. 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
[Bug 1389784] Review Request: python-scour - An SVG scrubber
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389784 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla --- Excellent, thank you so much! Please post a link to a review of yours, if you have one. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1389784] Review Request: python-scour - An SVG scrubber
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389784 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-scour -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1370449] Review Request: rtv - A simple terminal viewer for Reddit ( Reddit Terminal Viewer)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1370449 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- rtv-1.12.1-1.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 1383434] Review Request: python-ntlm3 - Python 3 compatible NTLM library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1383434 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- python-ntlm3-1.0.2-1.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 1383445] Review Request: python-requests_ntlm - HTTP NTLM authentication using the requests library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1383445 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- python-requests_ntlm-0.3.0-1.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 1383434] Review Request: python-ntlm3 - Python 3 compatible NTLM library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1383434 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- python-ntlm3-1.0.2-1.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 1370449] Review Request: rtv - A simple terminal viewer for Reddit ( Reddit Terminal Viewer)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1370449 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- rtv-1.12.1-1.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 1383445] Review Request: python-requests_ntlm - HTTP NTLM authentication using the requests library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1383445 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- python-requests_ntlm-0.3.0-1.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 1382755] Review Request: legion - A data-centric parallel programming system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382755 --- Comment #9 from Christoph Junghans --- Excluded arm for now: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16243810 Spec URL http://junghans.github.io/fedora-review/legion/legion.spec SRPM URL http://junghans.github.io/fedora-review/legion/legion-16.10.0-1.fc26.src.rpm Review.txt http://junghans.github.io/fedora-review/legion/review.txt Build log https://travis-ci.org/junghans/fedora-review/builds/171508738 Raw Build log https://s3.amazonaws.com/archive.travis-ci.org/jobs/171508739/log.txt -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1382755] Review Request: legion - A data-centric parallel programming system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382755
--- Comment #10 from Björn "besser82" Esser ---
(In reply to Christoph Junghans from comment #8)
> Arm builds are broken:
> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16199958
Looks like those builds are b0rk3n, because %{arm} arches don't support
SSE-instructions. Upstream should implement a workaround for 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 1387447] Review Request: php-sentry - PHP client for Sentry
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1387447 --- Comment #6 from Shawn Iwinski --- Regarding monolog stuff: Great catch! I'll check out comparability. Hopefully I can at least package the latest sentry/sentry 0.x version (0.22.0). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1199693] Review Request: pcp-pmda-cpp - C++ library for PCP PMDAs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199693 --- Comment #39 from Paul Colby --- Thanks Michael :) Back to square one, but that's a whole lot better than being on a non-existent / invalid square ;) Now to find 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
[Bug 1365319] Review Request: EPEL vcftools - newest version 0.1.14
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1365319 Michael Schwendt changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bl...@verdurin.com Component|Package Review |vcftools Version|rawhide |el5 Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|bl...@verdurin.com Product|Fedora |Fedora EPEL --- Comment #1 from Michael Schwendt --- File such tickets against the right component. Package reviews are something completely different. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1358917] Review Request: libtecla - Command-line editing library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1358917
--- Comment #2 from Michael Schwendt ---
> %files static
> %license LICENSE.TERMS
> %doc README
Since -static requires -devel and -devel requires the base package, there is
absolutely no need to duplicate the %license and %doc file in the -static
package.
> %packagestatic
> Summary:Static library for %{name}
> Requires: %{name}-devel
Preferably this explicit Requires follows these guidelines, too:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this 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 1303349] Review Request: flyingsaucersattack - Shoot down the attacking UFOs and to save the city
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1303349 --- Comment #7 from Link Dupont --- Sorry. I'm not yet approved as a packager, so I can't actually flag this as +. I was hoping I would be on the 16th, but its taking longer than expected. I'll return this one to the pool for someone else to pick up. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1303349] Review Request: flyingsaucersattack - Shoot down the attacking UFOs and to save the city
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1303349 Link Dupont changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|l...@sub-pop.net|nob...@fedoraproject.org -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1303349] Review Request: flyingsaucersattack - Shoot down the attacking UFOs and to save the city
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1303349 Link Dupont 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
[Bug 1386735] Review Request: php-fedora-autoloader - Fedora Autoloader
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1386735 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System --- php-fedora-autoloader-0.2.0-2.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-b13ad233fd -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1381661] Review Request: obs-build - A generic package build script
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1381661 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- obs-build-20161025-231.1.1.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-2016-56cfc3afd5 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
