[Bug 1415143] Review Request: egl-wayland - Wayland EGL External Platform library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1415143 --- Comment #39 from Hans de Goede --- (In reply to leigh scott from comment #38) > see what I mean? > https://cgit.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/commit/include/ > EGL?id=a98b3a0872f9c542e6db75d17b7875a3f0374a14 Yes, I've already fixed this (I've folded the new EGL_CAST macro into the updated eglext.h, no changes needed to egl.h then). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1418785] Review Request: libyui-mga-gtk - Libyui-Gtk extensions for Mageia tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418785 Christian Dersch changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||lupi...@mailbox.org Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lupi...@mailbox.org Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Christian Dersch --- Reviewing 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 1418661] Review Request: libyui-mga - Libyui extensions for Mageia tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418661
Christian Dersch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Christian Dersch ---
Approved :)
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "LGPL (v2.1 or v3.0)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or
generated". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/review/1418661-libyui-mga/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib64/cmake(qt5-qtbase)
[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 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]: 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]: 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 items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libyui-
mga-do
[Bug 1415143] Review Request: egl-wayland - Wayland EGL External Platform library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1415143 --- Comment #38 from leigh scott --- see what I mean? https://cgit.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/commit/include/EGL?id=a98b3a0872f9c542e6db75d17b7875a3f0374a14 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1410901] Review Request: python-fmn - A system for generic fedmsg-driven notifications for end users
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1410901 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- python-fmn-1.1.0-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-0919f05ff5 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1418661] Review Request: libyui-mga - Libyui extensions for Mageia tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418661 Christian Dersch changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||lupi...@mailbox.org Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lupi...@mailbox.org Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Christian Dersch --- Taken! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1415143] Review Request: egl-wayland - Wayland EGL External Platform library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1415143 --- Comment #37 from leigh scott --- (In reply to Hans de Goede from comment #36) > (In reply to leigh scott from comment #34) > > (In reply to Hans de Goede from comment #33) > > > Looks good. 2 remarks: > > > > > > 1) What about the remark about the eglext.h in mesa-devel being to old > > > Nicolas made ? > > > > Is it possible to update the mesa egl headers > > Yeah that is probably the best as other pkgs may need the new defines too. > So I've just done this a new mesa with updated eglext.h is now building for > F25+. I'll add it it to the libglvnd update in bodhi once the build is done. > > Note this means you will need to do a buildroot override for mesa-13.0.3-7 > for F25, unless that update goes stable before you import + build. I think you will need egl.h and eglplatform.h from kronos as well -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1418073] Review Request: pim-storage-service-manager - Pim Storage Service Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418073 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2017-02-02 13:08:36 --- Comment #7 from Rex Dieter --- imported, 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 1418072] Review Request: pim-data-exporter - Pim Data Exporter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418072 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2017-02-02 13:08:12 --- Comment #6 from Rex Dieter --- imported, 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 1418068] Review Request: akonadi-calendar-tools - Akonadi Calendar Tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418068 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2017-02-02 13:08:25 --- Comment #9 from Rex Dieter --- imported, 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 1418071] Review Request: mbox-importer - MBox Importer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418071 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2017-02-02 13:07:58 --- Comment #6 from Rex Dieter --- imported, 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 1418070] Review Request: akonadi-import-wizard - Akonadi Import Wizard
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418070 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2017-02-02 13:07:47 --- Comment #6 from Rex Dieter --- imported, 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 1415143] Review Request: egl-wayland - Wayland EGL External Platform library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1415143 --- Comment #36 from Hans de Goede --- (In reply to leigh scott from comment #34) > (In reply to Hans de Goede from comment #33) > > Looks good. 2 remarks: > > > > 1) What about the remark about the eglext.h in mesa-devel being to old > > Nicolas made ? > > Is it possible to update the mesa egl headers Yeah that is probably the best as other pkgs may need the new defines too. So I've just done this a new mesa with updated eglext.h is now building for F25+. I'll add it it to the libglvnd update in bodhi once the build is done. Note this means you will need to do a buildroot override for mesa-13.0.3-7 for F25, unless that update goes stable before you import + build. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1418788] Review Request: dnfdragora - DNF package-manager based on libYui abstraction
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418788 Björn "besser82" Esser changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1418785 (libyui-mga-gtk) Alias||dnfdragora Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418785 [Bug 1418785] Review Request: libyui-mga-gtk - Libyui-Gtk extensions for Mageia tools -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1418785] Review Request: libyui-mga-gtk - Libyui-Gtk extensions for Mageia tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418785 Björn "besser82" Esser changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1418788 (dnfdragora) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418788 [Bug 1418788] Review Request: dnfdragora - DNF package-manager based on libYui abstraction -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1418788] New: Review Request: dnfdragora - DNF package-manager based on libYui abstraction
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418788 Bug ID: 1418788 Summary: Review Request: dnfdragora - DNF package-manager based on libYui abstraction Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: besse...@fedoraproject.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Description: dnfdragora is a DNF frontend, based on rpmdragora from Mageia (originally rpmdrake) Perl code. dnfdragora is written in Python 3 and uses libYui, the widget abstraction library written by SUSE, so that it can be run using Qt 5, GTK+ 3, or ncurses interfaces. Koji Build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=17553029 Issues: No known issues. Some minor complains from rpmlint. FAS-User: besser82 Urls: Spec URL: https://besser82.fedorapeople.org/review/dnfdragona.spec SRPM URL: https://besser82.fedorapeople.org/review/dnfdragora-0.0.0-0.1.gitcc4e556.20170202.fc26.src.rpm Thanks 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 1415143] Review Request: egl-wayland - Wayland EGL External Platform library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1415143 --- Comment #35 from leigh scott --- (In reply to Hans de Goede from comment #33) > Looks good. 2 remarks: > > 1) What about the remark about the eglext.h in mesa-devel being to old > Nicolas made ? Or add them to libglvnd-*-devel -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1410901] Review Request: python-fmn - A system for generic fedmsg-driven notifications for end users
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1410901 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- python-fmn-1.1.0-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-82cca28be0 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1415143] Review Request: egl-wayland - Wayland EGL External Platform library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1415143 --- Comment #34 from leigh scott --- (In reply to Hans de Goede from comment #33) > Looks good. 2 remarks: > > 1) What about the remark about the eglext.h in mesa-devel being to old > Nicolas made ? Is it possible to update the mesa egl headers > 2) Nitpick: "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" that has not been necessary for a long > time now and should be removed That was inherited for rpmdev-newspec, I will remove when I import. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1418208] Review Request: perl-Class-Std-Fast - Faster but less secure replacement for Class::Std
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418208 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Class-Std-Fast-0.0.8-2.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-2a000e33e1 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1418208] Review Request: perl-Class-Std-Fast - Faster but less secure replacement for Class::Std
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418208 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Class-Std-Fast-0.0.8-2.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-907c53be46 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1418208] Review Request: perl-Class-Std-Fast - Faster but less secure replacement for Class::Std
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418208 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1418208] Review Request: perl-Class-Std-Fast - Faster but less secure replacement for Class::Std
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418208 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Class-Std-Fast-0.0.8-2.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-c20e7d1d4c -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1410901] Review Request: python-fmn - A system for generic fedmsg-driven notifications for end users
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1410901 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- python-fmn-1.1.0-1.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-5c96fc62ac -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1410901] Review Request: python-fmn - A system for generic fedmsg-driven notifications for end users
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1410901 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1418785] Review Request: libyui-mga-gtk - Libyui-Gtk extensions for Mageia tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418785 Björn "besser82" Esser changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1418661 (libyui-mga) Alias||libyui-mga-gtk Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418661 [Bug 1418661] Review Request: libyui-mga - Libyui extensions for Mageia tools -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1418661] Review Request: libyui-mga - Libyui extensions for Mageia tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418661 Björn "besser82" Esser changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1418785 (libyui-mga-gtk) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418785 [Bug 1418785] Review Request: libyui-mga-gtk - Libyui-Gtk extensions for Mageia tools -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1418785] New: Review Request: libyui-mga-gtk - Libyui-Gtk extensions for Mageia tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418785 Bug ID: 1418785 Summary: Review Request: libyui-mga-gtk - Libyui-Gtk extensions for Mageia tools Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: besse...@fedoraproject.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Description: This package contains the Libyui-Gtk extensions for Mageia tools. Koji Build: No build yet, because of missing dependencies. Issues: No known issues. Some minor complains from rpmlint. FAS-User: besser82 Urls: Spec URL: https://besser82.fedorapeople.org/review/libyui-mga-gtk.spec SRPM URL: https://besser82.fedorapeople.org/review/libyui-mga-gtk-1.0.1-0.1.git22f2cf6.20131215.fc25.src.rpm Thanks 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 1418073] Review Request: pim-storage-service-manager - Pim Storage Service Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418073 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/pim-storage-service-manager -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1410901] Review Request: python-fmn - A system for generic fedmsg-driven notifications for end users
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1410901 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-fmn -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1418068] Review Request: akonadi-calendar-tools - Akonadi Calendar Tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418068 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/akonadi-calendar-tools -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1418072] Review Request: pim-data-exporter - Pim Data Exporter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418072 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/pim-data-exporter -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1418071] Review Request: mbox-importer - MBox Importer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418071 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/mbox-importer -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1418070] Review Request: akonadi-import-wizard - Akonadi Import Wizard
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418070 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/akonadi-import-wizard -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1418073] Review Request: pim-storage-service-manager - Pim Storage Service Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418073 --- Comment #5 from Rex Dieter --- pkgdb request submitted -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1418068] Review Request: akonadi-calendar-tools - Akonadi Calendar Tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418068 --- Comment #7 from Rex Dieter --- pkgdb request submitted -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1418072] Review Request: pim-data-exporter - Pim Data Exporter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418072 --- Comment #4 from Rex Dieter --- pkgdb request submitted -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1418070] Review Request: akonadi-import-wizard - Akonadi Import Wizard
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418070 --- Comment #4 from Rex Dieter --- pkgdb requested -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1418071] Review Request: mbox-importer - MBox Importer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418071 --- Comment #4 from Rex Dieter --- pkgdb request submitted -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1418769] New: Review Request: mingw-hidapi - MinGW library for communicating with USB and Bluetooth HID devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418769 Bug ID: 1418769 Summary: Review Request: mingw-hidapi - MinGW library for communicating with USB and Bluetooth HID devices Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: t.sai...@alumni.ethz.ch QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://sailer.fedorapeople.org/mingw-hidapi.spec SRPM URL: https://sailer.fedorapeople.org/mingw-hidapi-0.8.0-0.2.d17db57.fc25.src.rpm Description: MinGW library for communicating with USB and Bluetooth HID devices Fedora Account System Username: sailer -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1417316] Review Request: perl-IO-Socket-Multicast - Perl library for sending and receiving multicast messages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1417316 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Bauer --- Based on conversation from another review, I have added the Perl license text to this package, since that is the license stated in Makefile.PL new specfile: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/knnniggett/specfiles/master/perl-IO-Socket-Multicast.spec new srpm: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/kni/zoneminder_deps/fedora-26-x86_64/00506644-perl-IO-Socket-Multicast/perl-IO-Socket-Multicast-1.12-2.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 1418208] Review Request: perl-Class-Std-Fast - Faster but less secure replacement for Class::Std
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418208 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/perl-Class-Std-Fast -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1410901] Review Request: python-fmn - A system for generic fedmsg-driven notifications for end users
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1410901
Randy Barlow changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Randy Barlow ---
Weird, when I re-ran it, it worked. Passed!
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "LGPL (v2.0 or later)", "*No copyright*
GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 133 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/rbarlow/reviews/1410901-python-fmn/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/python2.7/site-
packages/fmn/lib(python-fmn-lib), /usr/lib/python2.7/site-
packages/fmn/consumer/backends(python-fmn-consumer),
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/fmn/rules(python-fmn-rules),
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/fmn(python-fmn-rules),
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/fmn/consumer(python-fmn-consumer)
randy: This package is replacing these, so it's OK.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: 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
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include licens
[Bug 1405074] Review Request: golang-github-xeipuuv-gojsonschema - An implementation of JSON Schema, draft v4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1405074 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-xeipuuv-gojsonschema-0-0.1.gitd5336c7.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-b06dda05ee -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1405074] Review Request: golang-github-xeipuuv-gojsonschema - An implementation of JSON Schema, draft v4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1405074 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-xeipuuv-gojsonschema-0-0.1.gitd5336c7.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-4cf5f59594 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1405074] Review Request: golang-github-xeipuuv-gojsonschema - An implementation of JSON Schema, draft v4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1405074 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-xeipuuv-gojsonschema-0-0.1.gitd5336c7.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-aeef1724d5 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1405074] Review Request: golang-github-xeipuuv-gojsonschema - An implementation of JSON Schema, draft v4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1405074 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-xeipuuv-gojsonschema-0-0.1.gitd5336c7.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-bcf54b88d8 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1405074] Review Request: golang-github-xeipuuv-gojsonschema - An implementation of JSON Schema, draft v4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1405074 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1418073] Review Request: pim-storage-service-manager - Pim Storage Service Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418073 --- Comment #4 from Christian Dersch --- Forgot to x two checks: = MUST items = C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1418073] Review Request: pim-storage-service-manager - Pim Storage Service Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418073
Christian Dersch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Christian Dersch ---
Approved!
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[ ]: 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)", "Unknown or generated".
5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/review/1418073-pim-storage-service-
manager/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
==> %{?qt5_qtwebengine_arches:ExclusiveArch: %{qt5_qtwebengine_arches}}
[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 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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in pim-
storage-service-manager-d
[Bug 1418396] Review Request: python-the-new-hotness - Consume Anitya fedmsg messages to file bugzilla bugs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418396 --- Comment #7 from Jeremy Cline --- Okay, I've removed the prefix SRPM URL: https://jcline.fedorapeople.org/the-new-hotness-0.8.0-1.fc25.src.rpm Spec URL: https://jcline.fedorapeople.org/the-new-hotness.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 1418068] Review Request: akonadi-calendar-tools - Akonadi Calendar Tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418068
Christian Dersch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Christian Dersch ---
Works now => Approved!
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: 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: "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL
(v2 or later) (with Qt exception)", "Unknown or generated". 10 files
have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/review/1418068-akonadi-calendar-tools/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners:
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22/apps,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128/apps,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128, /usr/share/doc/HTML,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor, /usr/share/doc/HTML/en
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: 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]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package
contains icons.
Note: icons in akonadi-calendar-tools
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
==> %{?qt5_qtwebengine_arches:ExclusiveArch: %{qt5_qtwebengine_arches}}
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: 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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[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.
[
[Bug 1418072] Review Request: pim-data-exporter - Pim Data Exporter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418072
Christian Dersch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Christian Dersch ---
Approved!
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: 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.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 5 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/review/1418072-pim-data-exporter/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/doc/HTML,
/usr/share/doc/HTML/en, /usr/share/config.kcfg
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
/usr/share/doc/HTML/en/pimsettingexporter(kdepim-common)
==> Result of package split of kdepim, will vanish on import
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
==> %{?qt5_qtwebengine_arches:ExclusiveArch: %{qt5_qtwebengine_arches}}
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 61440 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]: 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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include
[Bug 1418073] Review Request: pim-storage-service-manager - Pim Storage Service Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418073 Christian Dersch changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||lupi...@mailbox.org Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lupi...@mailbox.org Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Christian Dersch --- Reviewing -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1415143] Review Request: egl-wayland - Wayland EGL External Platform library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1415143 --- Comment #33 from Hans de Goede --- Looks good. 2 remarks: 1) What about the remark about the eglext.h in mesa-devel being to old Nicolas made ? 2) Nitpick: "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" that has not been necessary for a long time now and should be removed -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1418068] Review Request: akonadi-calendar-tools - Akonadi Calendar Tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418068 --- Comment #5 from Rex Dieter --- maybe what I'd uploaded was stale (refreshed), can you refetch and try again? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1418072] Review Request: pim-data-exporter - Pim Data Exporter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418072 Christian Dersch changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||lupi...@mailbox.org Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lupi...@mailbox.org Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Christian Dersch --- Reviewing -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1418068] Review Request: akonadi-calendar-tools - Akonadi Calendar Tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418068 --- Comment #4 from Rex Dieter --- Odd, how did my scratch build succeed? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1418071] Review Request: mbox-importer - MBox Importer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418071
Christian Dersch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Christian Dersch ---
Approved!
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: 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)", "Unknown or generated". 3 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/review/1418071-mbox-importer/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: 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.
[-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
==> %{?qt5_qtwebengine_arches:ExclusiveArch: %{qt5_qtwebengine_arches}}
[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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in mbox-
importer-debuginfo
[?]: Package functions as de
[Bug 1418071] Review Request: mbox-importer - MBox Importer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418071 Christian Dersch changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||lupi...@mailbox.org Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lupi...@mailbox.org Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Christian Dersch --- Reviewing -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1418208] Review Request: perl-Class-Std-Fast - Faster but less secure replacement for Class::Std
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418208 Andrew Bauer changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Andrew Bauer --- Latest srpm builds in rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=17550405 This package has been approved. I am interested in co-maintaining this package with you. I'll request access to it as soon as it shows in the package database. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1418070] Review Request: akonadi-import-wizard - Akonadi Import Wizard
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418070
Christian Dersch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Christian Dersch ---
Approved!
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: 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)", "Unknown or generated". 7 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/review/1418070-akonadi-import-wizard/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners:
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/256x256/apps,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64/apps,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128/apps,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128, /usr/share/doc/HTML,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/256x256,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor, /usr/share/doc/HTML/en
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
/usr/share/doc/HTML/en/importwizard(kdepim-common)
==> This will vanish as this package is result of the kdepim-common split
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package
contains icons.
Note: icons in akonadi-import-wizard
[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 112640 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]: 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]: 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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[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]:
[Bug 1418572] Review Request: compat-libwebp05 - Compat package with libwebp 0.5 libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418572 Kalev Lember changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||compat-libwebp05-0.5.2-1.fc ||26 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2017-02-02 09:56:02 --- Comment #4 from Kalev Lember --- Package imported and built. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1415143] Review Request: egl-wayland - Wayland EGL External Platform library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1415143 --- Comment #32 from leigh scott --- - Add requires libglvnd-egl - Make review changes Spec URL: https://leigh123linux.fedorapeople.org/pub/review/egl-wayland/6/egl-wayland.spec SRPM URL: https://leigh123linux.fedorapeople.org/pub/review/egl-wayland/6/egl-wayland-1.0.0-0.6.20170120git743d702.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 1360284] Review Request: qt5-qtdeclarative-render2d - Render 2D QtDeclarative component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1360284 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2017-02-02 09:53:00 --- Comment #6 from Rex Dieter --- confirmed imported, closing -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1409869] Review Request: perl-X10 - X10 perl module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409869 Charles R. Anderson changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|c...@wpi.edu -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1418070] Review Request: akonadi-import-wizard - Akonadi Import Wizard
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418070 Christian Dersch changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||lupi...@mailbox.org Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lupi...@mailbox.org Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Christian Dersch --- Reviewing -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1418068] Review Request: akonadi-calendar-tools - Akonadi Calendar Tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418068 --- Comment #3 from Christian Dersch --- CMake Error at CMakeLists.txt:63 (find_package): Could not find a package configuration file provided by "KF5CalendarUtils" with any of the following names: KF5CalendarUtilsConfig.cmake kf5calendarutils-config.cmake Add the installation prefix of "KF5CalendarUtils" to CMAKE_PREFIX_PATH or set "KF5CalendarUtils_DIR" to a directory containing one of the above files. If "KF5CalendarUtils" provides a separate development package or SDK, be sure it has been installed. -- Configuring incomplete, errors occurred! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1418068] Review Request: akonadi-calendar-tools - Akonadi Calendar Tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418068 Christian Dersch changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||lupi...@mailbox.org Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lupi...@mailbox.org Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Christian Dersch --- Reviewing -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1368157] Review Request: python-pika-pool - Pools for pikas ( rename of python-pika_pool)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1368157 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-pika-pool -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1418572] Review Request: compat-libwebp05 - Compat package with libwebp 0.5 libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418572 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/compat-libwebp05 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1418396] Review Request: python-the-new-hotness - Consume Anitya fedmsg messages to file bugzilla bugs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418396 --- Comment #4 from Jeremy Cline --- the-new-hotness needs fedmsg to run it (it declares a moksha.consumer entry point in its setup.py which is how fedmsg finds it) so it's not standalone, exactly. On the other hand, I don't really see people importing it. Given that, maybe getting rid of the prefix makes the most sense. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1409869] Review Request: perl-X10 - X10 perl module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409869
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Bauer ---
Found a better way to fix the non-standard-executable-perm issue by using
%{_fix_perms} macro.
Latest specfile:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/knnniggett/specfiles/master/perl-X10.spec
Latest SRPM:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/kni/zoneminder_deps/fedora-26-x86_64/00506609-perl-X10/perl-X10-0.04-2.fc26.src.rpm
There are no more issues that I am aware of. This package is ready for 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 1418396] Review Request: python-the-new-hotness - Consume Anitya fedmsg messages to file bugzilla bugs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418396 --- Comment #6 from Igor Gnatenko --- (In reply to Jeremy Cline from comment #4) > the-new-hotness needs fedmsg to run it (it declares a moksha.consumer entry > point in its setup.py which is how fedmsg finds it) so it's not standalone, > exactly. On the other hand, I don't really see people importing it. Given > that, maybe getting rid of the prefix makes the most sense. Yeah, let's get rid out of prefix. (In reply to Jeremy Cline from comment #5) > When I don't have the prefix on the package name, is it still acceptable to > produce binary packages called python2-the-new-hotness and > python3-the-new-hotness? why would you do this? why not to put everything in main package and don't create subpackages? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1418396] Review Request: python-the-new-hotness - Consume Anitya fedmsg messages to file bugzilla bugs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418396 --- Comment #5 from Jeremy Cline --- When I don't have the prefix on the package name, is it still acceptable to produce binary packages called python2-the-new-hotness and python3-the-new-hotness? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1415143] Review Request: egl-wayland - Wayland EGL External Platform library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1415143 --- Comment #31 from Hans de Goede --- (In reply to Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) from comment #30) > There is also a need to add egl-wayland to multilib whitelist > https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/blob/master/f/fedora.conf#_178 Ack. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1415143] Review Request: egl-wayland - Wayland EGL External Platform library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1415143 --- Comment #30 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) --- There is also a need to add egl-wayland to multilib whitelist https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/blob/master/f/fedora.conf#_178 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1418661] Review Request: libyui-mga - Libyui extensions for Mageia tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418661 Björn "besser82" Esser changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||libyui-mga -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1418661] New: Review Request: libyui-mga - Libyui extensions for Mageia tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418661 Bug ID: 1418661 Summary: Review Request: libyui-mga - Libyui extensions for Mageia tools Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: besse...@fedoraproject.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Description: This package contains the Libyui extensions for Mageia tools. Koji Build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=17548183 Issues: No known issues. Some minor complains from rpmlint. FAS-User: besser82 Urls: Spec URL: https://besser82.fedorapeople.org/review/libyui-mga.spec SRPM URL: https://besser82.fedorapeople.org/review/libyui-mga-1.0.8-0.1.gita6a160e.20160313.fc26.src.rpm Thanks 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 1415143] Review Request: egl-wayland - Wayland EGL External Platform library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1415143 --- Comment #29 from Hans de Goede --- The point about updating eglext.h is valid. I believe it is best to just add a copy of a new enough version fo that file to the pkg for now (if it is dropped in the include dir it should get used). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1415143] Review Request: egl-wayland - Wayland EGL External Platform library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1415143 --- Comment #28 from Hans de Goede --- (In reply to Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) from comment #27) > I'm not sure if we aren't going too fast here. This implementation might be nvidia specific, but the spec is generic, so the config dir should be generic too and if it turns out to be a nvidia only config dir we can always move dir ownership to another package (e.g. this pkg) later having 2 pkgs own the same dir (in a transition period) is not a problem. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1415143] Review Request: egl-wayland - Wayland EGL External Platform library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1415143
--- Comment #27 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) ---
I'm not sure if we aren't going too fast here.
As I understand egl-wayland, it's "aimed" to be generic implementation on top
of (generic) EGL.
Unfortuntately, this doesn't seem to be completely generic yet as the produced
shared object name suggest. (nvidia-egl-wayland.so.1).
Looking at the code:
1/ it seems to rely on a special magic number for a fifo dedicated to nvidia
client (driver) side communication.
https://github.com/NVIDIA/egl-wayland/blob/master/wayland-egl/wayland-egl-ext.h#L33
2/ It seems to use on #ifdef EGL_NV_stream_remote available
https://www.khronos.org/registry/EGL/extensions/NV/EGL_NV_stream_remote.txt
Right now this eglext.h header update is available in mesa master (not in 17.0
or 13.0 branches) a98b3a0872f9c542e6db75d17b7875a3f0374a14
So right now we cannot build a full featured (nvidia-)egl-wayland replacing the
pre-build version. (we would need to backport at least the header update in our
mesa version).
Then I agree we don't know if this project will handle others (mesa?,
amdgpu-pro ?) egl-wayland implementation or if it will only be the nvidia
dedicated implementation.
My bet is that it will became generic as soon as there are others adopters.
Hence I don't think moving the directories into libglvnd-gl is relevant for the
long run. But I agree this is a possible way forward.
(don't forget arched requires: libglvnd-egl%{?_isa} )
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this 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 1415143] Review Request: egl-wayland - Wayland EGL External Platform library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1415143 --- Comment #26 from Hans de Goede --- (In reply to Simone Caronni from comment #25) > (In reply to Hans de Goede from comment #24) > > Note we can proceed without the libglvnd changes, things will work fine even > > if the directory is unowned until the libglvnd update lands. Worse case > > potential issue is the directories being left behind if someone installs + > > removes egl-wayland before the libglvnd changes land, which is a non issue > > really. > > Actually we should need "Requires: libglvnd-egl" in the spec file. Since there is a BuildRequires libEGL-devel in the spec I was expecting there to be an autogenerated dependency on libEGL.so.0, but you're right that is not there, so we are going to need an explicit "Requires: libglvnd-egl" in the spec file. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1414516] Review Request: python-monascaclient - Python client for monasca REST API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1414516 Javier Peña changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2017-02-02 06:58:39 --- Comment #7 from Javier Peña --- The python-monascaclient has now been built in RDO Trunk -- 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 1359402] Review Request: coot - crystallographic macromolecular building toolkit (unretire request )
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359402 --- Comment #36 from Antonio Trande --- Ask on 'devel' mailing list. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1415143] Review Request: egl-wayland - Wayland EGL External Platform library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1415143 --- Comment #25 from Simone Caronni --- (In reply to Hans de Goede from comment #24) > Note we can proceed without the libglvnd changes, things will work fine even > if the directory is unowned until the libglvnd update lands. Worse case > potential issue is the directories being left behind if someone installs + > removes egl-wayland before the libglvnd changes land, which is a non issue > really. Actually we should need "Requires: libglvnd-egl" in the spec file. @leigh, please wait to push the update until libglvnd updates land, so Taskotron will not complain with missing dependencies. Or just edit the libglvnd update adding egl-wayland in Bodhi. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1382681] Review Request: qt5-qtscxml - provides functionality to create state machines from SCXML files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382681 Helio Chissini de Castro changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed|2017-01-24 11:24:09 |2017-02-02 05:02:17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1415143] Review Request: egl-wayland - Wayland EGL External Platform library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1415143 --- Comment #24 from Hans de Goede --- Ok, So given the above discussion lets go with putting the */egl/egl_external_platform.d/ directories in the libglvnd-egl package. And make egl-wayland only have a main pkg I agree that that is cleaner, everyone ok with that ? I need to do a libglvnd update today anyways (to fix an issue with some steam games) and I'll add them there then. Leigh, can you respin one more time dropping the -common and putting all the files from -libs simply in the main package please ? Note we can proceed without the libglvnd changes, things will work fine even if the directory is unowned until the libglvnd update lands. Worse case potential issue is the directories being left behind if someone installs + removes egl-wayland before the libglvnd changes land, which is a non issue really. Regards, Hans -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1418208] Review Request: perl-Class-Std-Fast - Faster but less secure replacement for Class::Std
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418208 --- Comment #3 from Damian Wrobel --- (In reply to Andrew Bauer from comment #1) > Package builds in rawhide, package owns the files & folders it creates w/ > proper permissions. > > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=17545923 > > > - I like how you handled the license, but I'm wondering if we ought to > instead reference the actual Perl license text, rather than gpl 3, since > that is what is referred to on the class:std::fast cpan site. > > See "The Perl 5 License (Artistic 1 & GPL 1)" -> > http://dev.perl.org/licenses/ > > Doing that would then bring the license text in alignment with what is > stated in the License: field in the rpm specfile. > > This is just my opinion and I am not a lawyer, so feel free to respond as > you see fit. I found a similar case in a bug 1394267, comment 2 and in the end the package didn't include any file in %license tag, which IMHO is not in line with https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text, so I added a text from http://dev.perl.org/licenses/ as you suggested. I've also sent an e-mail to bug-Class-Std-Fast [at] rt.cpan.org asking authors to include license's text into distribution. > > - perl-generators is listed twice as a buildrequires Removed. > - rpmlint spotted trivial issues with the wording in the description as > shown below. I took the original description from https://metacpan.org/pod/Class::Std::Fast#DESCRIPTION > > $ rpmlint perl-Class-Std-Fast-0.0.8-1.fc25.noarch.rpm > perl-Class-Std-Fast.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ident -> > dent, indent, i dent > perl-Class-Std-Fast.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US > scalarifiyng -> scarification > perl-Class-Std-Fast.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US > scalarify -> scarify, clarify > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. > > $ rpmlint perl-Class-Std-Fast-0.0.8-1.fc25.src.rpm > perl-Class-Std-Fast.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ident -> > dent, indent, i dent > perl-Class-Std-Fast.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US > scalarifiyng -> scarification > perl-Class-Std-Fast.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scalarify > -> scarify, clarify > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. > > In my opinion, this is what I would do: > "You can get the object's identity via scalar-ifying your object. Getting > the objects identity is still possible via the ident method" Thank you for providing the correction - applied. > > rpmlint will still complain about that last "ident" but in that case the > actual name of the method is being referred to. Updated spec & srpm: Spec URL: https://dwrobel.fedorapeople.org/projects/rpmbuild/SPECS/perl-Class-Std-Fast.spec SRPM URL: https://dwrobel.fedorapeople.org/projects/rpmbuild/SRPMS/perl-Class-Std-Fast-0.0.8-2.fc25.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 1418396] Review Request: python-the-new-hotness - Consume Anitya fedmsg messages to file bugzilla bugs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418396 --- Comment #3 from Igor Gnatenko --- (In reply to Jeremy Cline from comment #2) > Well some of the fedmsg consumers use the prefix > (https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-fedbadges/) and > some don't > (https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/github2fedmsg/). I'm not > sure which is more appropriate and I don't really have a strong preference. > I assumed that most things that just provide a Python module and aren't > meant to be used as freestanding applications got the python- prefix. I > thought this was documented somewhere, but I can't seem to find it so I > might have just made that up. Yeah, basically if package provides module and it's supposed to be used (I mean `import foo`), then it should be python-. If it's just standalone application (isn't the-new-hotness like this?) - then without. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1414516] Review Request: python-monascaclient - Python client for monasca REST API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1414516 Alfredo Moralejo changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED Assignee|hgue...@redhat.com |amora...@redhat.com Flags||rdo-review+ --- Comment #6 from Alfredo Moralejo --- Based on information in comment #5, package is approved. -- 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 1414516] Review Request: python-monascaclient - Python client for monasca REST API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1414516
--- Comment #5 from Alfredo Moralejo ---
fedora-review results:
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Apache (v2.0)", "*No copyright* Apache", "Unknown or
generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 22 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/python-
monascaclient/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: 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
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
python2-monascaclient , python2-monascaclient-tests
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages sho
[Bug 1408869] Review Request: python-vine - Promises, promises, promises
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1408869 Matthias Runge changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2017-02-02 03:36:43 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1254484] Review Request: python-pluggy - The plugin manager stripped of pytest specific details
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1254484 Matthias Runge changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2017-02-02 03:33:31 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1415143] Review Request: egl-wayland - Wayland EGL External Platform library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1415143 --- Comment #23 from Simone Caronni --- (In reply to leigh scott from comment #22) > Wouldn't libglvnd need to be changed before this can be reviewed as the > directory /usr/share/egl/egl_external_platform.d/ would be unowned? Yes :) > Once Kwizart, Hans and you decide where you want the files I will update the > spec file. :-) Thank you very much. Will review immediately after but it's already ok :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1418572] Review Request: compat-libwebp05 - Compat package with libwebp 0.5 libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418572 --- Comment #2 from Kalev Lember --- Thanks Yanko! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1415143] Review Request: egl-wayland - Wayland EGL External Platform library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1415143 --- Comment #22 from leigh scott --- (In reply to Simone Caronni from comment #5) > Exactly, so the full file list of egl-wayland should be as follows: > > $ rpm -qpl egl-wayland-1.0.0-0.2.20170120git743d702.fc26.x86_64.rpm > /usr/lib64/libnvidia-egl-wayland.so.1 > /usr/lib64/libnvidia-egl-wayland.so.1.0.0 > /usr/share/doc/egl-wayland > /usr/share/doc/egl-wayland/README.md > /usr/share/egl/egl_external_platform.d/10_nvidia_wayland.json > Makes sense. Wouldn't libglvnd need to be changed before this can be reviewed as the directory /usr/share/egl/egl_external_platform.d/ would be unowned? Once Kwizart, Hans and you decide where you want the files I will update the spec file. :-) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1418572] Review Request: compat-libwebp05 - Compat package with libwebp 0.5 libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418572 Yanko Kaneti changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||yan...@declera.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|yan...@declera.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Yanko Kaneti --- Rubberstamp FTW -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
