[Bug 1394193] Review Request: arduino-builder - A command line tool for compiling Arduino sketches
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394193 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System --- arduino-1.6.6-2.fc25, arduino-builder-1.0.5-6.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-c33ec5464a -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1377038] Review Request: sxhkd - Simple X hotkey daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1377038 --- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System --- sxhkd-0.5.8-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-0fe63e931c -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1468768] Review Request: domoticz - Open source Home Automation System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1468768 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- domoticz-3.5877-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-c137106664 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1465884] Review Request: golang-github-cznic-lex - Support for (f) lex-like tool on .l source files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1465884 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |ON_QA Resolution|RAWHIDE |--- Keywords||Reopened --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-cznic-lex-0-0.1.20170112.git68050f5.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-618a7ca4cb -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1465885] Review Request: golang-github-cznic-golex - Lex/ Flex-like utility written in Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1465885 Bug 1465885 depends on bug 1465884, which changed state. Bug 1465884 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-cznic-lex - Support for (f)lex-like tool on .l source files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1465884 What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |ON_QA Resolution|RAWHIDE |--- -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1377038] Review Request: sxhkd - Simple X hotkey daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1377038 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System --- sxhkd-0.5.8-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-26bd56d311 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1462472] Review Request: qotd - A simple and lightweight Quote of the Day daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1462472 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |ON_QA Resolution|ERRATA |--- Keywords||Reopened --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- qotd-0.11.3-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-4084c13468 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1467322] Review Request: manifest-tool - A command line tool used for creating manifest list objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1467322 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2017-07-22 23:55:56 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System --- manifest-tool-0.6.0-3.gita28af2b.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1464194] Review Request: Framework dependency package for supporting ixpdimm_sw which installs the CLI , CIM and the I18N frameworks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1464194 Dan Williams changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(rutvij.g.karkhani | |s...@intel.com)| -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1464194] Review Request: Framework dependency package for supporting ixpdimm_sw which installs the CLI , CIM and the I18N frameworks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1464194 --- Comment #3 from Dan Williams --- Created attachment 1302942 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1302942&action=edit fedora-review build log fedora-review fails to build this package. I used the following build command: fedora-review -rn invm-frameworks-01.00.00.2001-1.fc25.src.rpm -o \\-r\ fedora-26-x86_64\ \\-\\-clean\ \\-\\-no-cleanup-after -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1421047] Review Request: deepin-tool-kit - Base development tool of all C++/ Qt Developer work on Deepin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1421047
Rex Dieter changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rdie...@gmail.com
--- Comment #6 from Rex Dieter ---
The convention kde-sig recommends if a package uses private headers, is to add
at least:
BuildRequires: qt5-qtbase-private-devel
and then one of:
%{?_qt5:Requires: %{_qt5}%{?_isa} >= %{_qt5_version}}
%{?_qt5:Requires: %{_qt5}%{?_isa} = %{_qt5_version}}
depending on your best judgement on how important the tight runtime dependency
is (depends largely on *how* the private headers and interfaces are being
used).
If you're not sure, go with the safer '=' variant.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this 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 1421047] Review Request: deepin-tool-kit - Base development tool of all C++/ Qt Developer work on Deepin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1421047 --- Comment #5 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- I don't know enough about qt for an informed decision. This is a nicety that we can figure out later. Bowen, can you post an updated spec file with the scriptlets? I'll rebuild the package once more, and if nothing pops up, approve it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1421047] Review Request: deepin-tool-kit - Base development tool of all C++/ Qt Developer work on Deepin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1421047
--- Comment #4 from sensor@gmail.com ---
# rpm -qR deepin-tool-kit
libQt5Core.so.5()(64bit)
libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit)
libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5.7)(64bit)
It already needs Qt 5.7. Of course, rebuild for each minor version,
compatibility may be better.
I think use ">=" instead of "=" to avoid too much rebuild, because Fedora's Qt
update is not frequent.
(In reply to Robin Lee from comment #3)
> You can add a line:
> %{?_qt5:Requires: %{_qt5}%{?_isa} = %{_qt5_version}}
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this 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 1421065] Review Request: deepin-qt-dbus-factory - A repository stores auto-generated Qt5 dbus code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1421065 --- Comment #4 from sensor@gmail.com --- -[fix]: no-documentation -[fix]: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib64/libdframeworkdbus.so.1.0.0 SPEC: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mosquito/deepin/fedora-24-x86_64/00582593-deepin-qt-dbus-factory/deepin-qt-dbus-factory.spec SRPM: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mosquito/deepin/fedora-24-x86_64/00582593-deepin-qt-dbus-factory/deepin-qt-dbus-factory-0.2.1-1.gitbecf852.fc24.src.rpm Task: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mosquito/deepin/build/582593/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1419330] Review Request: deepin-menu - deepin menu service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1419330 --- Comment #9 from sensor@gmail.com --- SPEC: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mosquito/deepin/fedora-25-x86_64/00582584-deepin-menu/deepin-menu.spec SRPM: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mosquito/deepin/fedora-25-x86_64/00582584-deepin-menu/deepin-menu-3.1.5-1.git3ab1c65.fc25.src.rpm Task: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mosquito/deepin/build/582584/ add Deepin for OnlyShowIn key: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=101878 (In reply to Robin Lee from comment #7) > [!]: Package is named according to the Package Versioning Guidelines. > Note: Git commit should not be included in the release tag if it is the > proper released version. > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning#Simple_versioning > And the source url can be written using Git tags: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Git_Tags > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > found: "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 25 files have > unknown license. > [-]: shebang removing procedure can be improved with respect to > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ > Packaging_tricks#Remove_shebang_from_Python_libraries > [!]: ldconfig is redundant > [!]: Removing OnlyShowIn is bad. One can submit a request to freedesktop to > add a new recognized desktop environment, like: > https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=51258 > [-]: It is better to use relative path for symlink. > [-]: It is better to separate changelog entries with empty lines. > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/ > Guidelines#Repeat_the_old_version_release_with_a_new_entry -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1447517] Review Request: ddcutil - control monitor settings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447517 --- Comment #4 from sanford rockowitz --- Per Jan's review, the %files section has been changed so that package ddcutil owns directories /usr/share/doc/ddcutil and /usr/share/ddcutil. I believe the rpmlint complaint about hidden directory /usr/lib/.build-id is a false positive. See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1431408. The updated file locations are: Spec URL: http://www.ddcutil.com/fedora/ddcutil.spec SRPM URL: http://www.ddcutil.com/fedora/ddcutil-0.8.4-1.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 1419330] Review Request: deepin-menu - deepin menu service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1419330 --- Comment #8 from sensor@gmail.com --- Thanks robin [fixed]: ldconfig is redundant [fixed]: Removing OnlyShowIn is bad. One can submit a request to freedesktop to add a new recognized desktop environment. I think other warnings are optional. I will submit a new variable to bugs.freedesktop.org for Deepin desktop environment. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1421047] Review Request: deepin-tool-kit - Base development tool of all C++/ Qt Developer work on Deepin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1421047
Robin Lee changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||robinlee.s...@gmail.com
--- Comment #3 from Robin Lee ---
You can add a line:
%{?_qt5:Requires: %{_qt5}%{?_isa} = %{_qt5_version}}
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this 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 1421065] Review Request: deepin-qt-dbus-factory - A repository stores auto-generated Qt5 dbus code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1421065
--- Comment #3 from Robin Lee ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
Note: /sbin/ldconfig not called in deepin-qt-dbus-factory
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Shared_Libraries
= 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.
[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.
[!]: 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.
[!]: 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)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "GPL (v2 or
later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 110 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/cheese/Downloads/1421065-deepin-qt-dbus-factory/licensecheck.txt
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[!]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in deepin-
qt-dbus-factory-debuginfo
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported N
[Bug 1370644] Review Request: python-django-picklefield - A pickled object field for Django
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1370644 Igor Gnatenko changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1370644] Review Request: python-django-picklefield - A pickled object field for Django
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1370644 --- Comment #9 from Igor Gnatenko --- I requested unretirement of package in PkgDB, somehow mrunge was admin there. So I will add you as co-maintainer once it is unretired. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1435876] Review Request: python-django-picklefield - Pickled object field for Django
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1435876 Igor Gnatenko changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed||2017-07-22 06:42:13 --- Comment #11 from Igor Gnatenko --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1370644 *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1370644] Review Request: python-django-picklefield - A pickled object field for Django
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1370644 --- Comment #8 from Igor Gnatenko --- *** Bug 1435876 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1433617] Review Request: python-proselint - A linter for prose
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1433617 --- Comment #6 from Peter Oliver --- SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mavit/python-proselint/fedora-26-x86_64/00574757-python-proselint/python-proselint-0.8.0-2.fc26.src.rpm > Also as per guidelines python packages should be prefixed with python[23] There are lots of applications that happen to be implemented in Python where the package name isn't prefixed; ansible, for example. I don't think that the implementation language is interesting or helpful to the person installing the package. > Is creating an extra package really required? If both packages are providing > same functionality. Can't you ship both python2 and python3 with the binary? I think what's happening here is that you're thinking of this a Python library that happens to include a binary, and I'm thinking of this as an application that happens to depend on an included Python library. Actually, I'm not aware of anything that uses the library except for the application. Perhaps the best way to simplify this is to not build anything for Python 2, and to put everything in a single package? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1467716] Review Request: reactfx - Reactive event streams for JavaFX
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1467716 Jonny Heggheim changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On|1467724 | --- Comment #8 from Jonny Heggheim --- I have updated the SPEC and it should be ready for a review. Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/reactfx.spec SRPM URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/reactfx-2.0-1.M5.fc26.src.rpm Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=20669805 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1467724 [Bug 1467724] Gradle builds stopped working since jna-4.4.0-2.fc27 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
