[Bug 1474033] Review Request: ucx - Communication library implementing high-performance messaging
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1474033 --- Comment #3 from Andrey Maslennikov --- Thanks a lot for the review! I'll be back with fixes. -- 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 1470842] Review Request: bazel - A fast, scalable, multi-language and extensible build system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1470842 --- Comment #2 from Seth Jennings --- Thanks for the review! The release tarballs (as opposed to the -dist.zip sources) have the correct permissions on the files and don't include the bootstrap binaries. The two binaries needed are protoc, provided by the protobuf-compiler package, and a protoc-gen-grpc-java, which current isn't packaged. It can be compile from https://github.com/grpc/grpc-java. However, that repo also has a recommended "build from source" procedure that includes prebundled binaries. Still trying to find a clean way to do this. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1465885] Review Request: golang-github-cznic-golex - Lex/ Flex-like utility written in Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1465885 Athos Ribeiro changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||athoscribe...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|athoscribe...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Athos Ribeiro --- Hi Fabio, I am taking this one. - The main package should ship the license file (and maybe the docs as well). - calc/calc.y has a different license, but is not present in the binary package. There is a license file for it in the sources, so no action should be needed here. - Since this is a binary program, you could consider either renaming the package to golex, as indicated in the guidelines [1], or adding a Provides for it (this is up to you though, just thought it was worth mentioning). - Is there any reason for not building a debuginfo package? Note that there is a --build option in gofed. - rpmlint triggers: golang-github-cznic-golex.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/golex (you probably want to chmod 0755 the binary file) [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Go#Packaging_Binaries [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Go#Debuginfo Package Review == Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated = 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. [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [!]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. [!]: 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]: 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 app
[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 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System --- manifest-tool-0.6.0-3.gita28af2b.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 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 1427341] Review Request: python-gamera - Gamera is a framework for building document analysis applications.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1427341 --- Comment #44 from VincentS --- Thanks for your help, here are new links. Spec URL: https://dl.casperlefantom.net/pub/review/python-gamera.spec SRPM URL: https://dl.casperlefantom.net/pub/review/python-gamera-3.4.3-6.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 1467132] Review Request: json-c12 - JSON implementation in C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1467132 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2017-07-23 14:49:45 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- json-c12-0.12.1-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1457949] Review Request: libdxflib - A C++ library for reading and writing DXF files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1457949 --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System --- libdxflib-3.17.0-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1473543] Review Request: python-ansicolors - ANSI colors support for python print output
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1473543 --- Comment #4 from Nikola Forró --- Everything looks fine, just update summary and description as discussed and I will set fedora-review+. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1473543] Review Request: python-ansicolors - ANSI colors support for python print output
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1473543 --- Comment #3 from Nikola Forró --- Package Review == Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated = 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. [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 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: No rpmlint messages. [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: [-]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python2-ansicolors , python3-ansicolors [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless
[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 #7 from sensor@gmail.com --- SPEC: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/FZUG/repo/0debd1ed03ecd29c5f01b98d44da1b6916c6555a/rpms/deepin_project/deepin-tool-kit.spec It's build pass and added the `%{?_qt5:Requires: %{_qt5}%{?_isa} = %{_qt5_version}}` macro. @Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek -- 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 1474033] Review Request: ucx - Communication library implementing high-performance messaging
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1474033 --- Comment #2 from Michael Schwendt --- > https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/8693/20688693/build.log Please look for ways to make build output verbose, so more of the compiler/linker calls and options can be seen in the build.log. You may need to disable .silent rules or execute Make with V=1, or enable other settings in the build framework. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags -- 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 1474033] Review Request: ucx - Communication library implementing high-performance messaging
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1474033 --- Comment #1 from Michael Schwendt --- > %global rel 1 > %global version 1.3.3274 Completely pointless definition and redefinition of macros for various reasons: 1) You define %rel only to use it once in the spec file. 2) You also use %release and not only %rel. 3) The "Release" tag implicitly defines %release, so both macros would be the same. 4) The "Version" tag implicitly defines %version. You redefine %version. Further, the dist tag is missing: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning#Simple_versioning > %global __check_files %{nil} Comment/rationale missing! > %bcond_with valgrind No-op due to nothing related within the spec file. > Summary: Unified Communication X That's only what the UCX acronym stands for. The %description could explain that and expand on the summary, while the %summary could tell a bit more: Summary: Communication framework for data centric and high-performance applications > Group: Development/Libraries No. The group for system runtime library packages is "System Environment/Libraries" for decades. On the contrary, "Development/Libraries" is for -devel packages, for example. > Source: %{name}-%{version}.tar.gz https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Referencing_Source > ExclusiveArch: aarch64 ppc64le x86_64 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Architecture_Support > Requires(post): /sbin/ldconfig > Requires(postun): /sbin/ldconfig Implicit and automatic with /sbin/ldconfig scriptlets for a *very* long time. > %description > %description devel Odd that the -devel package contains the more detailed description. The base package also contains more than libraries, lacking an explanation. > %build > ./contrib/configure-release \ That's a configure script for which you really want to use the %configure macro. See "rpm -E %configure" on what it does. > mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/ld.so.conf.d/ > echo %{_libdir} > %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/ld.so.conf.d/ucx.conf No, %_libdir is in the default search path list for runtime libs. > %clean > rm -rf %{buildroot} https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections > %files > %{_libdir}/lib*.so.* > %{_bindir}/uc* > %{_datadir}/ucx/perftest/* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership > %{_sysconfdir}/ld.so.conf.d/ucx.conf Superfluous. > %files devel > %{_includedir}/uc* > %{_libdir}/lib*.a https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries > %changelog > * Mon Jul 3 2017 Andrey Maslennikov 1.3 > - Fedora package created Not matching %version. Please take a look at the fedora-review tool. Point it at this ticket via "fedora-review -b 1474033" and let it fetch the latest package files to help you with lots of automated reviewing tests. -- 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 662270] Review Request: circuit_macros - A set of macros for drawing high-quality line diagram
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=662270 Till Maas changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||opensou...@till.name Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed||2017-07-23 09:06:56 --- Comment #3 from Till Maas --- The spec from comment:2 does not work anymore and the review request has been blocking FE-DEADREVIEW for more than 18 months now. Therefore I close this review request. Ben, if you still plan to get this package reviewed, please open a new review request with working URLs for the spec and SRPM files. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1473314] Review Request: rclone - rsync for cloud storage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1473314 --- Comment #2 from Till Maas --- I believe I read somewhere that support for go on ppc64 was discontinued. You should use ExclusiveArch: %{golang_arches} in the spec to make sure that the package is only built for archs in Fedora that contain golang. Also it is better to use %{_mandir}/man1/rclone.1* to match the man page as it also allows to change the compression method for the manpage. Also it seems to me that the package bundles a lot of other go packages (in the vendor directory of the source tarball). AFAIK Fedora currently requires the packages to be de-bundled unless there is good reason not to do so. Since it is quite a lot of packages, would you be willing to debundle them? -- 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 1473314] Review Request: rclone - rsync for cloud storage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1473314 --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- rclone published a new release yesterday. I'm updating the spec accordingly. Spec URL: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-2E1dURtQf5eFp0Y0pXenpZT3M/view?usp=sharing SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/8484/20688484/rclone-1.37-1.fc27.src.rpm Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=20688479 Koji fails on arch ppc64, the log says it can't find golang >= 1.5, which is weird since it was compiling it fine last week with golang 1.8.1. I don't know why. -- 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 827723] Review Request: gnuhealth - The free Health and Hospital Information System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827723 --- Comment #21 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) --- May be best to close this and open up a fresh review. To everyone above - if you're interested in using the package on Fedora, please consider packaging it up and helping with maintenance. Cheers! Ankur -- 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 1468665] Review Request: gsettings-qt - Qt/QML bindings for GSettings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1468665 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System --- gsettings-qt-0-0.2.20170715bzr83.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 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-e91c753f3a -- 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 #26 from Fedora Update System --- sxhkd-0.5.8-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 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-2017-9c4a3ece9c -- 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 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-cznic-lex-0-0.1.20170112.git68050f5.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 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-2017-2bc648fab9 -- 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 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- domoticz-3.5877-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 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-2017-9f014592ce -- 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 1474033] Review Request: ucx - Communication library implementing high-performance messaging
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1474033 Andrey Maslennikov changed: What|Removed |Added URL||https://github.com/openucx/ ||ucx CC||andre...@mellanox.com Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1474033] New: Review Request: ucx - Communication library implementing high-performance messaging
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1474033 Bug ID: 1474033 Summary: Review Request: ucx - Communication library implementing high-performance messaging Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: andre...@mellanox.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://gist.github.com/amaslenn/3c847e0bdc063bcbb4b6507b5efbf6b9/raw/ccae11efb3a573d77633e60b485f1f221cdd7e10/ucx.spec SRPM URL: https://gist.github.com/amaslenn/3c847e0bdc063bcbb4b6507b5efbf6b9/raw/ccae11efb3a573d77633e60b485f1f221cdd7e10/ucx-1.3.3274-1.src.rpm Description: UCX is a communication library implementing high-performance messaging. Requires either RDMA-capable device, Cray Gemini or Aries, for inter-node communication. Future versions will support also TCP for inter-node, to lift that hardware dependency. In addition, the library can be used for intra-node communication by leveraging the following shared memory mechanisms: posix. sysv, cma, knem, xpmem. Fedora Account System Username: andreyma That is my first package, so I need a sponsor. Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/tasks?state=all&owner=andreyma&view=tree&method=all&order=-id -- 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 1463353] Review Request: casync - Content Addressable Data Synchronizer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1463353 Igor Gnatenko changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2017-07-23 05:04:29 -- 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 1468545] Review Request: rust-packaging - RPM macros for building Rust packages on various architectures
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1468545 Igor Gnatenko changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2017-07-23 04:48:39 -- 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 1467762] Review Request: btrbk - Tool for creating snapshots and remote backups of btrfs subvolumes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1467762 Igor Gnatenko changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2017-07-23 04:46:33 -- 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 1469009] Review Request: odcs - On Demand Compose Service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1469009 Igor Gnatenko changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2017-07-23 04:41:36 -- 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 827723] Review Request: gnuhealth - The free Health and Hospital Information System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827723 Jun Aruga changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jar...@redhat.com --- Comment #20 from Jun Aruga --- How do we fix this? Unfortunately, below links are "403 Forbidden". > SPEC: http://shakthimaan.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/gnuhealth.spec > SRPM: http://shakthimaan.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/gnuhealth-1.6.1-1.fc18.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 1471885] Review Request: oci-umount - OCI umount hook for docker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1471885 Igor Gnatenko changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Igor Gnatenko --- > Docker rpm sadly has epoch. I do not think we can get rid of it. When you are obsoleting something, doesn't matter which Epoch it has, you still can obsolete it. BTW, you should include Epoch in Obsoletes, otherwise it will not obsolete it. this can be fixed during import, so APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1468665] Review Request: gsettings-qt - Qt/QML bindings for GSettings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1468665 Robin Lee changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |gsettings-qt - QML bindings |gsettings-qt - Qt/QML |for GSettings |bindings for GSettings -- 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