[Bug 1573695] Review Request: battray - simple tray icon to show a laptop’s battery status.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1573695 --- Comment #10 from Ranjan Maitra --- New uploads: SRPM: http://www.public.iastate.edu/~maitra/Fedora/battray-2.3-4.fc28.src.rpm SPEC: http://www.public.iastate.edu/~maitra/Fedora/battray.spec Builds fine on koji. $ koji build --scratch f28 battray-2.3-3.fc28.src.rpm ... 0 free 0 open 2 done 0 failed 26759949 build (f28, battray-2.3-3.fc28.src.rpm) completed successfully Don't need python3-gobject, but of course, need python3-devel (thanks!). Please advise further as needed, or approve. -- 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 1574737] Review Request: rust-tokio-fs - Filesystem API for Tokio
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1574737 Josh Stone changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2018-05-04 00:17:48 -- 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 1573695] Review Request: battray - simple tray icon to show a laptop’s battery status.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1573695 --- Comment #9 from Ranjan Maitra --- Sorry, i realized that I made an error in the SRPM: SRPM: http://www.public.iastate.edu/~maitra/Fedora/battray-2.3-3.fc28.src.rpm SPEC: http://www.public.iastate.edu/~maitra/Fedora/battray.spec I will make the changes to the spec file but wanted this to be corrected first. -- 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 1558473] Review Request: xtl - QuantStack tools library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1558473 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- xtl-0.4.7-1.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-f47e9aa2e2 -- 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 1558473] Review Request: xtl - QuantStack tools library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1558473 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|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 1574287] Review Request: R-rvest - Easily Harvest (Scrape) Web Pages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1574287 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- R-rvest-0.3.2-1.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-7a98341a4d -- 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 1574287] Review Request: R-rvest - Easily Harvest (Scrape) Web Pages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1574287 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- R-rvest-0.3.2-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-03d53db8c2 -- 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 1574287] Review Request: R-rvest - Easily Harvest (Scrape) Web Pages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1574287 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|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 1574283] Review Request: R-whoami - Username, Full Name, Email Address, 'GitHub' Username of the Current User
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1574283 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|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 1574283] Review Request: R-whoami - Username, Full Name, Email Address, 'GitHub' Username of the Current User
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1574283 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- R-whoami-1.1.2-1.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-15ad30fd25 -- 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 1574283] Review Request: R-whoami - Username, Full Name, Email Address, 'GitHub' Username of the Current User
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1574283 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- R-whoami-1.1.2-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-9867605b32 -- 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 1574284] Review Request: R-gmailr - Access the Gmail RESTful API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1574284 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- R-gmailr-0.7.1-1.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-350a27062e -- 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 1574284] Review Request: R-gmailr - Access the Gmail RESTful API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1574284 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|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 1574284] Review Request: R-gmailr - Access the Gmail RESTful API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1574284 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- R-gmailr-0.7.1-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-7ca525fe1a -- 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 1574737] Review Request: rust-tokio-fs - Filesystem API for Tokio
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1574737 --- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-tokio-fs -- 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 1574737] Review Request: rust-tokio-fs - Filesystem API for Tokio
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1574737 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - Latest version packaged - License ok - Builds in Mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to the Packaging Guidelines Package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1558473] Review Request: xtl - QuantStack tools library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1558473 --- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/xtl -- 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 1574283] Review Request: R-whoami - Username, Full Name, Email Address, 'GitHub' Username of the Current User
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1574283 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/R-whoami -- 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 1574284] Review Request: R-gmailr - Access the Gmail RESTful API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1574284 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/R-gmailr -- 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 1574287] Review Request: R-rvest - Easily Harvest (Scrape) Web Pages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1574287 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/R-rvest -- 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 1574737] Review Request: rust-tokio-fs - Filesystem API for Tokio
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1574737 Josh Stone changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1574276 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1574276 [Bug 1574276] rust-tokio-0.1.6 is available -- 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 1574737] New: Review Request: rust-tokio-fs - Filesystem API for Tokio
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1574737 Bug ID: 1574737 Summary: Review Request: rust-tokio-fs - Filesystem API for Tokio Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jist...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://jistone.fedorapeople.org/review/rust-tokio-fs/rust-tokio-fs.spec SRPM URL: https://jistone.fedorapeople.org/review/rust-tokio-fs/rust-tokio-fs-0.1.0-1.fc29.src.rpm Description: Filesystem API for Tokio Fedora Account System Username: jistone -- 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 1573638] Review Request: python-dotenv - Add .env support to your django/flask apps in development
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1573638 --- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin --- It's good for approval but you need to find a sponsor first. Try introducing yourself to the 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 1573638] Review Request: python-dotenv - Add .env support to your django/flask apps in development
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1573638 --- Comment #4 from Fernando Pereira dos Santos --- Fixed Spec URL: https://ferox.fedorapeople.org/rpm-packages/python-dotenv/0.8.2/python-dotenv.spec SRPM URL: https://ferox.fedorapeople.org/rpm-packages/python-dotenv/0.8.2/python-dotenv-0.8.2-3.fc27.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 1573532] Review Request: golang-github-syncthing-notify - File system event notification library on steroids
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1573532 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-syncthing-notify-0-0.1.20180502gitb9ceffc.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 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-2018-514e85313d -- 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 1572929] Review Request: R-promises - Abstractions for Promise-Based Asynchronous Programming
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1572929 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- R-promises-1.0.1-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 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-2018-32d2064a5f -- 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 1573639] Review Request: R-httr - Tools for Working with URLs and HTTP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1573639 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- R-httr-1.3.1-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 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-2018-7356bef646 -- 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 1573695] Review Request: battray - simple tray icon to show a laptop’s battery status.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1573695 --- Comment #8 from Robert-André Mauchin --- (In reply to Ranjan Maitra from comment #7) > (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #6) > > You removed the BR and RR, why? Xoi need python3-devel > > > > - Depends on python3-devel: > > > > BuildRequires: python3-devel > > BuildRequires: python3-setuptools > > I also thought so, but I took python3-devel out (also uninstalled in my > local machine) and recompiled and it works just fine from what I can tell > (for me). Is this still needed? > > > > > - There's no python-gobject, it should be: > > > > Requires: python3-gobject > > Same story here: removing it seems to do fine without it. I can't notice any > ill-effect. > It won't work in mock or Koji. You need to test the package in mock first. You can do it with fedpkg: fedpkg --release f29 mockbuild --mock-config fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --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 1573639] Review Request: R-httr - Tools for Working with URLs and HTTP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1573639 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- R-httr-1.3.1-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 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-2018-0da6916f3e -- 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 1573532] Review Request: golang-github-syncthing-notify - File system event notification library on steroids
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1573532 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-syncthing-notify-0-0.1.20180502gitb9ceffc.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 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-2018-f1e8a09a28 -- 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 1561574] Review Request: golang-github-gopherjs - Compiler from Go to JavaScript for running Go code in a browser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1561574 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-gopherjs-0-0.2.20180418gite14987c.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-7c8f2137d3 -- 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 1561574] Review Request: golang-github-gopherjs - Compiler from Go to JavaScript for running Go code in a browser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1561574 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |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 553281] Review Request: netsniff-ng - high performance linux network sniffer for packet inspection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=553281 Marcelo Ricardo Leitner changed: What|Removed |Added Alias|netsniff-ng | -- 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 1573695] Review Request: battray - simple tray icon to show a laptop’s battery status.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1573695
--- Comment #7 from Ranjan Maitra ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #6)
> You removed the BR and RR, why? Xoi need python3-devel
>
> - Depends on python3-devel:
>
> BuildRequires: python3-devel
> BuildRequires: python3-setuptools
I also thought so, but I took python3-devel out (also uninstalled in my local
machine) and recompiled and it works just fine from what I can tell (for me).
Is this still needed?
>
> - There's no python-gobject, it should be:
>
> Requires: python3-gobject
Same story here: removing it seems to do fine without it. I can't notice any
ill-effect.
> - Also, split the descirption to stay below 80 characters per line:
>
> %description
> Battray is a fairly simple tray icon to show a laptop’s battery status. It’s
> simple, easy, fairly environment-independent, and ‘just works’ without tons
> of
> {Gnome,KDE,..} dependencies.
>
> One can also configure it to play annoying sounds if your battery is getting
> low, dim the screen when you switch from AC to battery, etc.
>
> - You have a mix of tabs and spaces, use either tabs or spaces but not both
> at the same time.
OK, will fix these, 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 1536780] Review Request: swift-lang - Apple' s Swift Programming Language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1536780 --- Comment #30 from Ron Olson --- Updated to the 2018-05-02 build (first cut from the Swift master branch for what will be the actual 4.2 release): Spec URL: https://tachoknight.fedorapeople.org/swift-lang/swift-lang.spec SRPM 4.2-0.7.20180502gitb08fb12.fc27.src.rpm8 for Fedora 27: https://tachoknight.fedorapeople.org/swift-lang/swift-lang-4.2-0.7.20180502gitb08fb12.fc27.src.rpm SRPM 4.2-0.7.20180502gitb08fb12.fc27.src.rpm for Fedora 28: https://tachoknight.fedorapeople.org/swift-lang/swift-lang-4.2-0.7.20180502gitb08fb12.fc28.src.rpm SRPM 4.2-0.7.20180502gitb08fb12.fc27.src.rpm for Fedora Rawhide: https://tachoknight.fedorapeople.org/swift-lang/swift-lang-4.2-0.7.20180502gitb08fb12.fc29.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 1558683] Review Request: python-ucsmsdk - Python SDK for Cisco UCSM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1558683 --- Comment #13 from Alfredo Moralejo --- (In reply to Sandhya Dasu from comment #12) > (In reply to Alfredo Moralejo from comment #11) > > Some notes: > > > > - Missing Requires on python2-pyparsing for python2-ucsmsdk package. > Updating ucsmsdk with requirements.txt containing pyparsing. Will upload > another RPM shortly. > > - Does ucsmsdk support python3?, i'm trying to run unit tests in Fedora with > > python3 and it's failing. We should build the package for python2 and > > python3 as fedora is moving to it. > > Yes, does support Python3. Will build package for both python2 and python3. > > > - It'd be nice to run unit tests in %check section of the spec if possible > > (you can look at > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-kubernetes/blob/master/f/python- > > kubernetes.spec for example) > > Just spoke to original authors of ucsmsdk. UTs currently require access to a > valid UCSM domain (UCSM or an emulator) for them to pass. ok, then, we can skip then. However, by definition, unit tests should not be influenced by external conditions which should be mocked. -- 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 1561528] Review Request: golang-github-ajstarks-svgo - Go library for SVG generation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1561528 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-ajstarks-svgo-0-0.2.20180421git644b8db.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-11b052a5d8 -- 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 1561682] Review Request: golang-x-debug - Debugging tools for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1561682 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |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 1561682] Review Request: golang-x-debug - Debugging tools for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1561682 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- golang-x-debug-0-0.1.20180421git7fa577e.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-77182eeac2 -- 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 1561634] Review Request: golang-github-shurcool-events - Events service definition for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1561634 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |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 1561634] Review Request: golang-github-shurcool-events - Events service definition for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1561634 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-shurcool-events-0-0.1.20180420git6abd291.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-81e6a7a5e7 -- 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 1528288] Review Request: python-ntlm-auth - Python 3 compatible NTLM library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1528288 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- python-ntlm-auth-1.1.0-1.fc28, python-requests_ntlm-1.1.0-1.fc28, python-winrm-0.3.0-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 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 1570360] Review Request: R-rmarkdown - Dynamic Documents for R
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1570360 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- R-rmarkdown-1.9-1.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 1571141] Review Request: R-mockr - Mocking in R
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1571141 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2018-05-03 11:22:27 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- R-mockr-0.1-1.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 1571140] Review Request: R-import - An Import Mechanism for R
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1571140 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2018-05-03 11:22:30 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- R-import-1.1.0-2.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 1570347] Review Request: R-R.devices - Unified Handling of Graphics Devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1570347 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- R-R.devices-2.15.1-2.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 1571095] Review Request: R-ascii - Export R objects to several markup languages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1571095 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2018-05-03 11:22:24 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- R-ascii-2.1-1.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 1561528] Review Request: golang-github-ajstarks-svgo - Go library for SVG generation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1561528 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |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 1561528] Review Request: golang-github-ajstarks-svgo - Go library for SVG generation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1561528 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-ajstarks-svgo-0-0.1.20180421git644b8db.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-fdb62037c3 -- 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 1561661] Review Request: golang-x-build - Continuous build and release infrastructure
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1561661 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |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 1561661] Review Request: golang-x-build - Continuous build and release infrastructure
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1561661 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- golang-x-build-0-0.1.20180421git86f50f0.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-8eae2dcd18 -- 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 1561613] Review Request: golang-github-shurcool - Common Go code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1561613 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-shurcool-0-0.1.20180419git47fa5b7.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-fa085a1d3e -- 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 1561613] Review Request: golang-github-shurcool - Common Go code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1561613 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |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 1528288] Review Request: python-ntlm-auth - Python 3 compatible NTLM library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1528288 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- python-ntlm-auth-1.1.0-1.fc27, python-requests_ntlm-1.1.0-1.fc27, python-winrm-0.3.0-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 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 1561708] Review Request: golang-cloud-google - Google Cloud Client Libraries for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1561708 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- golang-cloud-google-0.20.0-1.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-b9821bbbd8 -- 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 1561708] Review Request: golang-cloud-google - Google Cloud Client Libraries for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1561708 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |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 1528288] Review Request: python-ntlm-auth - Python 3 compatible NTLM library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1528288 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2018-05-03 11:04:43 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- python-ntlm-auth-1.1.0-1.el7, python-requests_ntlm-1.1.0-1.el7, python-winrm-0.3.0-1.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 1570047] Review Request: prestopalette - A tool for artists to create harmonious color palettes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1570047
--- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- %{?el7:BuildRequires: gcc-c++}
You should BR gcc-c++ for Fedora too (disregards the fedora-review message,
it's outdated)
BuildRequires: gcc-c++
- I don't think these Requires are necessary, they should be picked up
automatically:
Requires:qt5-qtbase
Requires:qt5-qtbase-gui
Requires:qt5-qtmultimedia
- The dist tag in the Release field is incorrect:
Release:1%{?dist}
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Dist tag is present.
= 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 124 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/prestopalette/review-
prestopalette/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: 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]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: 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]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files 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
[Bug 1558683] Review Request: python-ucsmsdk - Python SDK for Cisco UCSM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1558683 --- Comment #12 from Sandhya Dasu --- (In reply to Alfredo Moralejo from comment #11) > Some notes: > > - Missing Requires on python2-pyparsing for python2-ucsmsdk package. Updating ucsmsdk with requirements.txt containing pyparsing. Will upload another RPM shortly. > - Does ucsmsdk support python3?, i'm trying to run unit tests in Fedora with > python3 and it's failing. We should build the package for python2 and > python3 as fedora is moving to it. Yes, does support Python3. Will build package for both python2 and python3. > - It'd be nice to run unit tests in %check section of the spec if possible > (you can look at > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-kubernetes/blob/master/f/python- > kubernetes.spec for example) Just spoke to original authors of ucsmsdk. UTs currently require access to a valid UCSM domain (UCSM or an emulator) for them to pass. -- 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 1574362] Review Request: python-black - Uncompromising Python code formatter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1574362 --- Comment #2 from Christian Heimes --- Thanks for the package review. I have updated the spec file and SRPM. Since the package hasn't been released yet, I haven't bothered to update the changelog. I hope that's fine with you. -- 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 1573855] Review Request: editorconfig - Parser for EditorConfig files written in C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1573855 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- editorconfig-0.12.2-3.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-15253e3e70 -- 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 1573855] Review Request: editorconfig - Parser for EditorConfig files written in C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1573855 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- editorconfig-0.12.2-3.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-a56047d297 -- 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 1573855] Review Request: editorconfig - Parser for EditorConfig files written in C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1573855 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|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 1573638] Review Request: python-dotenv - Add .env support to your django/flask apps in development
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1573638
--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- The correct license shorthand is BSD:
License:BSD
See the full list: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#SoftwareLicenses
- %{sum} is not a valid macro. Use %{summary}:
Summary:%{summary}
- Escape the macros in %changelog by doubling %:
- %%{_bindir}/dotenv removed and added BSD License
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: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 17 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review
/python-dotenv/review-python-dotenv/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.
[!]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
Note: Macros in: python3-dotenv (summary)
[-]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: 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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
python2-dotenv , python3-dotenv
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is prese
[Bug 1573695] Review Request: battray - simple tray icon to show a laptop’s battery status.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1573695
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Review Request: Battray - |Review Request: battray -
|simple tray icon to show a |simple tray icon to show a
|laptop’s battery status.|laptop’s battery status.
--- Comment #6 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
You removed the BR and RR, why? Xoi need python3-devel
- Depends on python3-devel:
BuildRequires: python3-devel
BuildRequires: python3-setuptools
- There's no python-gobject, it should be:
Requires: python3-gobject
- Also, split the descirption to stay below 80 characters per line:
%description
Battray is a fairly simple tray icon to show a laptop’s battery status. It’s
simple, easy, fairly environment-independent, and ‘just works’ without tons of
{Gnome,KDE,..} dependencies.
One can also configure it to play annoying sounds if your battery is getting
low, dim the screen when you switch from AC to battery, etc.
- You have a mix of tabs and spaces, use either tabs or spaces but not both at
the same time.
--
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 1574362] Review Request: python-black - Uncompromising Python code formatter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1574362
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Remove the shebangs of these scripts:
python3-black.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/black.py /usr/bin/env python3
python3-black.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/black.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3
python3-black.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/blib2to3/pgen2/token.py /usr/bin/env python3
python3-black.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/blib2to3/pgen2/token.py 644 /usr/bin/env
python3
See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_tricks#Remove_shebang_from_Python_libraries
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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 40 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/python-black/review-python-
black/licensecheck.txt
[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]: 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 license text files separate from upstream.
[-]:
[Bug 1574287] Review Request: R-rvest - Easily Harvest (Scrape) Web Pages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1574287
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package have the default element marked as %%doc :doc, DESCRIPTION
= 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]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated". 53 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/R-rvest/review-R-rvest/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[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]: 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
R:
[x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires.
[x]: The package has the standard %install section.
[x]: Package requires R-core.
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files 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, /sbi
[Bug 1572084] Review Request: colin - Tool to check generic rules/ best-practices for containers/images/dockerfiles
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1572084 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- colin-0.0.4-3.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-f061528c22 -- 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 1572084] Review Request: colin - Tool to check generic rules/ best-practices for containers/images/dockerfiles
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1572084 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- colin-0.0.4-3.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-28f57e0247 -- 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 1572084] Review Request: colin - Tool to check generic rules/ best-practices for containers/images/dockerfiles
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1572084 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|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 1574284] Review Request: R-gmailr - Access the Gmail RESTful API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1574284
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package have the default element marked as %%doc :doc, DESCRIPTION
= 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: "Unknown or generated". 64 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/R-gmailr/review-R-gmailr/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[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]: 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
R:
[x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires.
[x]: The package has the standard %install section.
[x]: Package requires R-core.
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files 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
[Bug 1574283] Review Request: R-whoami - Username, Full Name, Email Address, 'GitHub' Username of the Current User
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1574283
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package have the default element marked as %%doc :DESCRIPTION
= 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: "Unknown or generated". 18 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/R-whoami/review-R-whoami/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[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]: 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
R:
[x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires.
[x]: The package has the standard %install section.
[x]: Package requires R-core.
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files 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,
[Bug 1573855] Review Request: editorconfig - Parser for EditorConfig files written in C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1573855 --- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/editorconfig -- 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 1572084] Review Request: colin - Tool to check generic rules/ best-practices for containers/images/dockerfiles
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1572084 --- Comment #9 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/colin -- 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 1558473] Review Request: xtl - QuantStack tools library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1558473 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1573532] Review Request: golang-github-syncthing-notify - File system event notification library on steroids
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1573532 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-syncthing-notify-0-0.1.20180502gitb9ceffc.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-f1e8a09a28 -- 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 1573532] Review Request: golang-github-syncthing-notify - File system event notification library on steroids
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1573532 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-syncthing-notify-0-0.1.20180502gitb9ceffc.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-514e85313d -- 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 1573532] Review Request: golang-github-syncthing-notify - File system event notification library on steroids
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1573532 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|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 1490454] Review Request: leiningen - the easiest way to try clojure ( http://leiningen.org)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490454 --- Comment #1 from Fedora End Of Life --- This message is a reminder that Fedora 26 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 26. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '26'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora 26 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete. -- 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 1510877] Review Request: perl-LMDB_File - Perl wrapper around the OpenLDAP's LMDB
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1510877 Jakub Jančo changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2018-05-03 04:27:42 -- 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 1510877] Review Request: perl-LMDB_File - Perl wrapper around the OpenLDAP's LMDB
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1510877 --- Comment #23 from Fedora End Of Life --- This message is a reminder that Fedora 26 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 26. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '26'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora 26 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete. -- 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 1493932] Review Request: plasma-vault - strong encryption features presented in a user-friendly way
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1493932 --- Comment #8 from Fedora End Of Life --- This message is a reminder that Fedora 26 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 26. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '26'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora 26 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete. -- 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 1460319] Review Request: gnome-applets - GNOME Flashback panel applets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460319 --- Comment #2 from Fedora End Of Life --- This message is a reminder that Fedora 26 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 26. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '26'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora 26 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete. -- 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 1460325] Review Request: gnome-flashback - GNOME Flashback desktop session
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460325 --- Comment #3 from Fedora End Of Life --- This message is a reminder that Fedora 26 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 26. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '26'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora 26 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete. -- 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 1445321] Review Request: freeipa-desktop-profile - FreeIPA desktop profiles module for Fleet Commander
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1445321 --- Comment #18 from Fedora End Of Life --- This message is a reminder that Fedora 26 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 26. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '26'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora 26 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete. -- 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 1554033] Review Request: rubygem-em-websocket-client - EventMachine WebSocket Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1554033 Vít Ondruch changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) CC||niteshnarayan@fedoraproject ||.org --- Comment #4 from Vít Ondruch --- *** Bug 1063047 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** 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 1063047] Review Request: rubygem-em-websocket-client - A WebSocket client implementation for EventMachine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063047 Vít Ondruch changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED CC||vondr...@redhat.com Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed||2018-05-03 03:30:42 --- Comment #9 from Vít Ondruch --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1554033 *** -- 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 1063038] Review Request: rubygem-cookiejar - The Ruby CookieJar is a library to help manage client-side cookies in pure Ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063038 Vít Ondruch changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED CC||vondr...@redhat.com Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2018-05-03 03:29:05 --- Comment #17 from Vít Ondruch --- This has been in Fedora for ages already. -- 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 1572084] Review Request: colin - Tool to check generic rules/ best-practices for containers/images/dockerfiles
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1572084 --- Comment #8 from Petr Hracek --- colin is already updated https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1078531 -- 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 1574362] New: Review Request: python-black - Uncompromising Python code formatter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1574362 Bug ID: 1574362 Summary: Review Request: python-black - Uncompromising Python code formatter Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: chei...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://cheimes.fedorapeople.org/python-black/python-black.spec SRPM URL: https://cheimes.fedorapeople.org/python-black/python-black-18.4a4-1.fc27.src.rpm Description: Black is the uncompromising Python code formatter. By using it, you agree to cease control over minutiae of hand-formatting. In return, Black gives you speed, determinism, and freedom from pycodestyle nagging about formatting. You will save time and mental energy for more important matters. Blackened code looks the same regardless of the project you're reading. Formatting becomes transparent after a while and you can focus on the content instead. Fedora Account System Username: cheimes -- 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
