[Bug 1596045] New: Review Request: gip - GUI Internet Protocol Calculator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1596045 Bug ID: 1596045 Summary: Review Request: gip - GUI Internet Protocol Calculator Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: vasc...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/RussianFedora/gip/master/gip.spec SRPM URL: http://koji.russianfedora.pro/kojifiles/work/tasks/204/70204/gip-1.7.0-1.fc29.src.rpm Description: Gip is an application for making IP address based calculations. For example, it can display IP addresses in binary format. It is also possible to calculate subnets. I am not found any GUI ip calculator in Fedora. This one very old but still work. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/KGIABMYIJRZ2OPS73F36TZNXFXB4XYUR/
[Bug 1558578] Review Request: python-copr-common - Python code used by Copr
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1558578
Dominik Turecek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE
Last Closed||2018-06-28 03:14:25
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: ${hyperkitty_url}
[Bug 1594313] Review Request: java-11-openjdk - next LTS OpenJDK for Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313 --- Comment #14 from Severin Gehwolf --- (In reply to jiri vanek from comment #9) > (In reply to Severin Gehwolf from comment #8) > > (In reply to Severin Gehwolf from comment #7) > > > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=27877911 scratch > > > build. > > > > That built successfully. > > Of course it does. I told you :) FYI: An official package review requires for the proposed SRPM to build on at least one architecture. We should at least provide some evidence of that. Sorry, but "I am telling you it builds" isn't good enough as evidence. Hence the above build and comment. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/XYWUYW2IGZOINIEYJZ3X3YIB3RUZWIT5/
[Bug 1594313] Review Request: java-11-openjdk - next LTS OpenJDK for Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313 --- Comment #15 from Severin Gehwolf --- (In reply to jiri vanek from comment #10) > Fixed. You have some sript to generate this befor buid? Or from build itslef? > Used. I've used something like this: $ grep 'lib.*\.so' java-11-openjdk.spec \ | grep ^% | cut -d'/' -f4 | sed 's/\./\[\.\]/g' \ | sed 's/\]so/\]so\.\*/g' > private_libs.txt $ echo $(cat private_libs.txt) | sed 's/ /\|/g' libsplashscreen[.]so.*|libawt_xawt[.]so.*|libjawt[.]so.*|libjli[.]so.*|libattach[.]so.*|libawt[.]so.*|libextnet[.]so.*|libjsig[.]so.*|libawt_headless[.]so.*|libdt_socket[.]so.*|libfontmanager[.]so.*|libinstrument[.]so.*|libj2gss[.]so.*|libj2pcsc[.]so.*|libj2pkcs11[.]so.*|libjaas[.]so.*|libjava[.]so.*|libjavajpeg[.]so.*|libjdwp[.]so.*|libjimage[.]so.*|libjsound[.]so.*|liblcms[.]so.*|libmanagement[.]so.*|libmanagement_agent[.]so.*|libmanagement_ext[.]so.*|libmlib_image[.]so.*|libnet[.]so.*|libnio[.]so.*|libprefs[.]so.*|librmi[.]so.*|libsaproc[.]so.*|libsctp[.]so.*|libsunec[.]so.*|libunpack[.]so.*|libverify[.]so.*|libzip[.]so.* -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/OXMDVG2TQXWTK7VHMUD4TKE6G2ESLJ23/
[Bug 1538824] Review Request: python-grabbit - Get grabby with file trees
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1538824 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/NYOVAOCQVGTWTAQTR3FSPJHSAJWONP7I/
[Bug 1538824] Review Request: python-grabbit - Get grabby with file trees
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1538824 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- python-grabbit-0.2.0-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-c29bd76a34 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/DNHLZ4MIIBBR6BXXZ7IY5U4YU2CTV6YF/
[Bug 1538824] Review Request: python-grabbit - Get grabby with file trees
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1538824 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- python-grabbit-0.2.0-1.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-1ec02c2917 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/RUYTAOQI56CPBA2PN6JTH36XFGMIE53S/
[Bug 1594313] Review Request: java-11-openjdk - next LTS OpenJDK for Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313 --- Comment #16 from jiri vanek --- (In reply to Severin Gehwolf from comment #14) > (In reply to jiri vanek from comment #9) > > (In reply to Severin Gehwolf from comment #8) > > > (In reply to Severin Gehwolf from comment #7) > > > > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=27877911 scratch > > > > build. > > > > > > That built successfully. > > > > Of course it does. I told you :) > > FYI: > An official package review requires for the proposed SRPM to build on at > least one architecture. We should at least provide some evidence of that. > Sorry, but "I am telling you it builds" isn't good enough as evidence. Hence > the above build and comment. Yup. I know. I Was not expecting "ready to go" proof of all arches to soon. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/556ZDHTMLJVACFF4DVN4RYEKCUQKTYXP/
[Bug 1585565] Review Request: shaman - man pages viewer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1585565 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #17 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/44KX4XLWMRJII6OLYYAX3E4JEL2ORASM/
[Bug 1586199] Review Request: rubygem-mini_magick - Manipulate images with minimal use of memory via ImageMagick
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1586199 Pavel Valena changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1267323 CC||ilya.grad...@gmail.com --- Comment #12 from Pavel Valena --- *** Bug 1264660 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1267323 [Bug 1267323] Review Request: rubygem-carrierwave - Ruby file upload library -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/6JRLFQCQIQCVMRC36JXCSKOWCFYYQ2NP/
[Bug 1267323] Review Request: rubygem-carrierwave - Ruby file upload library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1267323 Bug 1267323 depends on bug 1264660, which changed state. Bug 1264660 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-mini_magick - Manipulate images https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264660 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/N5TUKLJIUUH47ZPA6OETRRSULIU3ABZX/
[Bug 1264660] Review Request: rubygem-mini_magick - Manipulate images
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264660 Pavel Valena changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||pval...@redhat.com Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed||2018-06-28 05:39:52 --- Comment #6 from Pavel Valena --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1586199 *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/7YE3BKI4LQXLDX5PDFZ2BUSBTCEMOTLS/
[Bug 1267323] Review Request: rubygem-carrierwave - Ruby file upload library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1267323 Pavel Valena changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1586199 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1586199 [Bug 1586199] Review Request: rubygem-mini_magick - Manipulate images with minimal use of memory via ImageMagick -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/K727XMH5PDSJ5ZVCKIX5ROY4K7A5D7GT/
[Bug 1595940] Review Request: mingw-glslang - MinGW Windows glslang library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1595940
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 ---
Package approved.
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]: 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: "Apache (v2.0)", "BSD (3 clause)", "GPL (v3 or later)",
"Unknown or generated". 1593 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/mingw-glslang
/review-mingw-glslang/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package 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
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
mingw32-glslang , mingw64-glslang
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should
[Bug 1595941] Review Request: mingw-spirv-headers - MinGW Windows spirv-headers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1595941
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 ---
Package approved.
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]: 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 59 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/mingw-spirv-headers/review-mingw-spirv-
headers/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-
root, /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw, /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-
root/mingw/include, /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32, /usr/i686-w64-mingw32,
/usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root, /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-
root/mingw, /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include
[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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: 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 mingw32
-spirv-headers , mingw64-spirv-headers
[?]: 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]:
[Bug 1595943] Review Request: mingw-spirv-tools - MinGW Windows spirv-tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1595943
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 ---
Package approved.
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]: 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: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache
(v2.0)". 48 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/mingw-spirv-tools/review-
mingw-spirv-tools/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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
= 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 mingw32
-spirv-tools , mingw64-spirv-tools
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
Note: mingw32-spirv-tools : /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-
root/mingw/lib/pkgconfig/SPIRV-Tools-shared.pc mingw32-spirv-tools :
/usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/pkgconfig/SPIRV-Tools.pc
mingw64-spirv-tools : /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-
root/mingw/lib/pkgconfig/SPIRV-Tools-shared.pc mingw64-spirv-tools :
/usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/pkgconfig/SPIRV-Tools.pc
[-]: Description
[Bug 1595945] Review Request: mingw-vulkan-headers - MinGW Windows vulkan-headers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1595945
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 ---
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated". 20 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review
/mingw-vulkan-headers/review-mingw-vulkan-headers/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-
root, /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw, /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-
root/mingw/include, /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32, /usr/i686-w64-mingw32,
/usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/share, /usr/i686-w64-mingw32
/sys-root, /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw,
/usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include, /usr/i686-w64-mingw32
/sys-root/mingw/share
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-
root/mingw/include/vulkan(mingw64-vulkan), /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-
root/mingw/include/vulkan(mingw32-vulkan)
[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 uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in mingw32
-vulkan-headers , mingw64-vulkan-hea
[Bug 1595947] Review Request: mingw-vulkan-loader - MinGW Windows vulkan-loader library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1595947
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 ---
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)",
"NTP", "NTP MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (3 clause)". 67 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/mingw-vulkan-loader/review-mingw-vulkan-
loader/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-
root/mingw/include/vulkan(mingw64-vulkan), /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-
root/mingw/include/vulkan(mingw32-vulkan)
[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 20480 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 uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in mingw32
-vulkan-loader , mingw64-vulkan-loader
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[
[Bug 1595948] Review Request: mingw-vulkan-validation-layers - MinGW Windows vulkan-validation-layers library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1595948
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 ---
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Apache (v2.0)", "BSD (2 clause)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like) NTP",
"Unknown or generated". 97 files have unknown license. Detailed output
of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/mingw-vulkan-validation-
layers/review-mingw-vulkan-validation-layers/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 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]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in mingw32
-vulkan-validation-layers , mingw64-vulkan-validation-layers
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of or
[Bug 1596045] Review Request: gip - GUI Internet Protocol Calculator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1596045
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- export LIBDIR=lib
%{_usr}/lib/%{name}
Shouldn't you use %{_libdir} instead? i.e lib64/ on 64 bits systems and lib/ on
32 bits one.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/ATQ36ITHTUCTXHLEDLMIHK6RSIDLMVIB/
[Bug 1267323] Review Request: rubygem-carrierwave - Ruby file upload library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1267323 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zebo...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Do you still need this to be reviewed? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/26NU3RKKJDRY6T6ISIXOQSXVTAEWPH6Y/
[Bug 1594313] Review Request: java-11-openjdk - next LTS OpenJDK for Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #17 from Severin Gehwolf ---
# to regenerate source0 and source1(shenandaoh hotspot) run update_package.sh
# update_package.sh contains hardcoded repos, revisions, tags, and projects to
regenerate the source archives
# at the end it sed specfile and sources to match those new names
# FIXME adapt the script to work better on shenandoah hotspot (After the jdk10
and removal of forest). Current source1 was done by manual delete
# FIXME: adapt the sed to new specfile and sources or drop those parts
# next update will be used to tweek those two files
Source0: jdk-jdk-jdk-%{majorver}+%{buildver}.tar.xz
I'm missing a short and concise:
# Use this to generate the source tarball:
# $ VERSION="jdk-11+19" PROJECT_NAME=jdk REPO_NAME=jdk \
# bash generate_source_tarball.sh
# Shenandoah HotSpot
# current name used with tip and bleading edge may be incorrect
Source1: jdk-shenandoah-jdk-ac148db384ee.tar.xz
With JDK 11 I'm doubtful we should continue with the different hotspot for
shenandoah arches approach. One single tarball for all arches would be better.
We'll discuss this elsewhere. I'd suggest to leave shenandoah out for now and
add it back in when the upstream repos are ready.
# Systemtap tapsets. Zipped up to keep it small
# Use 'generate_tarballs.sh' to generate the following tarballs
# They are based on code contained in the IcedTea7 project
# The script have hardcoded url and revision
# FIXME discover what exactly is current systemtap from or
# FIXME current systemtap is not working, new version is necessary
Source8: systemtap-tapset-3.6.0pre02.tar.xz
All of those comments above suggest we don't have a good way to regenerate each
tarball. I have a feeling that update_package.sh has too many responsibilities.
Ideally there would be one script or one command per tarball doing just that:
producing one source tarball in a reproducible way!
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/CZM34MN233R4YDMLMBBGHUARAOCALZKB/
[Bug 1594313] Review Request: java-11-openjdk - next LTS OpenJDK for Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #18 from Severin Gehwolf ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed (FE-Legal clarification)
Issues:
===
- Package java-11-openjdk provides "java" and "jre". Intentional?
Are we ready for people requiring "java" to get JDK-11?
- Some licenses in sources are not listed in "License" field.
I'm blocking FE-Legal for a review. Note that I've asked about
NTP license here:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/le...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/2QXHMTZ47DMMARJVI6PUMSYUPVFAGLCV/
- Please remove no longer needed defattr in %files. See below.
- Some descriptions/summaries exceed 79 characters. See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#description-line-too-long
Please fix descriptions/summaries. See rpmlint output.
- There are many typos in the spec file. Please run:
$ hunspell java-11-openjdk.spec
and fix them.
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Note: See rpmlint output.
Note from reviewer: Only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory.
Verify they are not in ld path. Note from reviewer: Not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
Generic:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: licensecheck output file attached.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[-]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
Note from reviewer: Relevant compiler flags/linker flags are passed
to the OpenJDK build.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
Note: No (noreplace) in %config
/etc/java/java-11-openjdk/java-11-openjdk-11.0.ea.19-1.fc28.x86_64/conf/management/jmxremote.password.template
%config
/etc/java/java-11-openjdk/java-11-openjdk-11.0.ea.19-1.fc28.x86_64/conf/accessibility.properties
%config
/etc/java/java-11-openjdk/java-11-openjdk-11.0.ea.19-1.fc28.x86_64-slowdebug/conf/management/jmxremote.password.template
%config
/etc/java/java-11-openjdk/java-11-openjdk-11.0.ea.19-1.fc28.x86_64-slowdebug/conf/accessibility.properties
Note from reviewer: This seems OK as those are password templates and
properties not expected to be
changed by the user.
[!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: 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.
[!]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package
contains icons.
Note: icons in java-11-openjdk, java-11-openjdk-slowdebug
[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 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]:
[Bug 1596045] Review Request: gip - GUI Internet Protocol Calculator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1596045 --- Comment #2 from Vasiliy Glazov --- Actually it not contain any library: /usr/lib/gip /usr/lib/gip/calc32.png /usr/lib/gip/calc48.png /usr/lib/gip/calculator.png /usr/lib/gip/gears.png /usr/lib/gip/gip.glade /usr/lib/gip/netcard.png And export LIBDIR=lib not used by installation script. It always use /usr/lib. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/BY4CW4KXOBNKSP6VALK66N6W6ZXLIIIV/
[Bug 1594313] Review Request: java-11-openjdk - next LTS OpenJDK for Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313 --- Comment #19 from Severin Gehwolf --- Created attachment 1455277 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1455277&action=edit Full review.txt with rpmlint output. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/VCLB5BNE25PYBOOGYSPGZZGITHSW6RQ2/
[Bug 1594313] Review Request: java-11-openjdk - next LTS OpenJDK for Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313 --- Comment #20 from Severin Gehwolf --- Created attachment 1455279 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1455279&action=edit licensecheck output. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/JU7XHCRD3IJHSNZFBB4DGT4MK3OG3QRD/
[Bug 1594313] Review Request: java-11-openjdk - next LTS OpenJDK for Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313 --- Comment #21 from Severin Gehwolf --- Created attachment 1455281 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1455281&action=edit Patch with suggested license changes. This patch needs a legal review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/KHYPFAYFB6VVAT636N53WATH2MJ77NE4/
[Bug 1594313] Review Request: java-11-openjdk - next LTS OpenJDK for Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313 Severin Gehwolf changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||182235 (FE-Legal) --- Comment #22 from Severin Gehwolf --- Blocking FE-Legal so as to get input on changes of patch in comment 21. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182235 [Bug 182235] Fedora Legal Tracker -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/BTY3H3B3E765IVUX4Z4XPJ7XM4YIWNVK/
[Bug 1594313] Review Request: java-11-openjdk - next LTS OpenJDK for Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313 --- Comment #23 from Severin Gehwolf --- $ cut -d':' -f2 review-java-11-openjdk/licensecheck.out | sort | uniq Apache GPL (v2) Apache (v2.0) Apache (v2.0) GENERATED FILE BSD (2 clause) BSD (3 clause) BSD (3 clause) GENERATED FILE BSD (3 clause) GPL (v2) BSD (4 clause) CC0 GPL (v2) CDDL Freetype Freetype GENERATED FILE GENERATED FILE GPL (v2) GPL (v2) GENERATED FILE GPL (v2 or later) GPL (v2) (with incorrect FSF address) GPL (v2) (with incorrect FSF address) GENERATED FILE ISC ISC MIT (old) LGPL (v2.1 or later) MIT (CMU, retain warranty disclaimer) MIT (old) MIT/X11 (BSD like) MIT/X11 (BSD like) GPL (v2) *No copyright* Apache (v2.0) *No copyright* Apache (v2.0) GENERATED FILE *No copyright* Apache (v2.0) GPL *No copyright* CC0 *No copyright* GENERATED FILE *No copyright* GPL *No copyright* GPL (v2) *No copyright* MIT/X11 (BSD like) *No copyright* NTP *No copyright* Public domain GPL (v2) *No copyright* Public domain GPL (v2) GENERATED FILE *No copyright* UNKNOWN NTP NTP (legal disclaimer) Public domain GPL (v2) UNKNOWN zlib/libpng zlib/libpng MIT/X11 (BSD like) All licenses should be accounted for except NTP. See comment 21. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/UW5Y45ZVTPNPZ3WEYXXNWGMWGPX6MGM5/
[Bug 1594313] Review Request: java-11-openjdk - next LTS OpenJDK for Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313 --- Comment #24 from Severin Gehwolf --- CDDL is from the hotspot ideal graph visualizer: $ grep CDDL review-java-11-openjdk/licensecheck.out /var/lib/mock/fedora-28-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/java-11-openjdk-11.0.ea.19-1.fc28.x86_64/openjdk/src/utils/IdealGraphVisualizer/View/src/com/sun/hotspot/igv/view/actions/CustomizablePanAction.java: CDDL That's not part of the binary packages. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/I5R2NTC7CVD5NGZFRA43XNQT4LRDCFAN/
[Bug 1594858] Review Request: tiny-dnn - Header only, dependency-free deep learning framework in C++14
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594858 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- tiny-dnn-1.0.0-0.a3.2.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-2018-9da7461032 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/KRTHN4LGFMAGNW5OX6SHLOGKPCSVXCQT/
[Bug 1595305] Review Request: vulkan-validation-layers - Vulkan validation layers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1595305 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- vulkan-headers-1.1.77.0-1.fc27, vulkan-loader-1.1.77.0-4.fc27, vulkan-tools-1.1.77.0-1.fc27, vulkan-validation-layers-1.1.77.0-3.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-b048db87cd -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/IDTPWA7CNXRQNW6VDWATLIKKW7TEWN2N/
[Bug 1594968] Review Request: R-itertools - Iterator Tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594968 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- R-itertools-0.1.3-1.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-2018-7c58802cf8 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/FJPTXGP3WHTDSCFHMEIIFXL2LSJFIJ7R/
[Bug 1595099] Review Request: vulkan-loader - Vulkan loader
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1595099 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- vulkan-headers-1.1.77.0-1.fc27, vulkan-loader-1.1.77.0-4.fc27, vulkan-tools-1.1.77.0-1.fc27, vulkan-validation-layers-1.1.77.0-3.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-b048db87cd -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/OAQDYI63PHLUFGPUIATMH527DILQNZGD/
[Bug 1594134] Review Request: vulkan-headers - Vulkan Header files and API registry
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594134 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- vulkan-headers-1.1.77.0-1.fc27, vulkan-loader-1.1.77.0-4.fc27, vulkan-tools-1.1.77.0-1.fc27, vulkan-validation-layers-1.1.77.0-3.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-b048db87cd -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/QYTQU6FOTHA3VB3ZUMHGJW6I4V3EVZVV/
[Bug 1595308] Review Request: vulkan-tools - Vulkan tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1595308 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- vulkan-headers-1.1.77.0-1.fc27, vulkan-loader-1.1.77.0-4.fc27, vulkan-tools-1.1.77.0-1.fc27, vulkan-validation-layers-1.1.77.0-3.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-b048db87cd -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/K6ABNUIKWWCYP7PTOMZDJ6PTEDEJHILY/
[Bug 1538824] Review Request: python-grabbit - Get grabby with file trees
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1538824 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- python-grabbit-0.2.0-1.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-c29bd76a34 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/RLLY2UEN3ENOZ7LKXJNKRP3MMAWE7GF7/
[Bug 1596045] Review Request: gip - GUI Internet Protocol Calculator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1596045
--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- These types of files should be in datadir, not libdir: libdir is for arch
dependent data and datadir is for arch independent data.
Therefore I suggest to remove export LIBDIR=lib and change the install
script as such in %prep:
sed -i
's|INST_LIBDIR="$INST_PREFIX/lib/$EXECUTABLE"|INST_LIBDIR="$INST_PREFIX/share/$EXECUTABLE"|'
build.sh
sed -i
's|INST_PIXMAPDIR="$INST_PREFIX/lib/$EXECUTABLE"|INST_PIXMAPDIR="$INST_PREFIX/share/$EXECUTABLE"|'
build.sh
And in %files:
%doc AUTHORS ChangeLog
%license COPYING
%{_bindir}/%{name}
%{_datadir}/%{name}
%{_datadir}/applications/%{name}.desktop
%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/*x*/apps/calc.png
%{_datadir}/mime/packages/%{name}.xml
I've tested the change and the program works and finds its data.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "GPL", "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF
address)", "Unknown or generated", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect
FSF address)". 31 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/gip/review-
gip/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]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[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.
[!]: 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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: 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]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file
[Bug 1596045] Review Request: gip - GUI Internet Protocol Calculator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1596045 --- Comment #4 from Vasiliy Glazov --- Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/RussianFedora/gip/master/gip.spec SRPM URL: http://koji.russianfedora.pro/kojifiles/work/tasks/211/70211/gip-1.7.0-1.fc29.src.rpm Corrected. Now plugin and pictures in /usr/share. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/4FXVBPLFBH3OAXYDHPWZTG5B5DPRFS3Z/
[Bug 1596045] Review Request: gip - GUI Internet Protocol Calculator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1596045 --- Comment #5 from Vasiliy Glazov --- Are you approve package? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/ZJZMNZM3CFS3GRW5BH6PSCVYMA2DK6TZ/
[Bug 1596045] Review Request: gip - GUI Internet Protocol Calculator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1596045 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Yes, 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/OOEAJJUFHG3RYWPS575OKE3ZZ7KV64X5/
[Bug 1596045] Review Request: gip - GUI Internet Protocol Calculator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1596045 --- Comment #7 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gip -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/74UR4OPB5SDI6PX2OB3Q2JOZYHMK447B/
[Bug 1539291] Review Request: ghc-echo - Cross-platform, cross-console echoing of terminal input
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539291 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2018-06-28 09:33:12 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- ghc-echo-0.1.3-3.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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/R27IKBBTKWZNRC5GCS2OSAL4C6FWX6AE/
[Bug 1596045] Review Request: gip - GUI Internet Protocol Calculator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1596045 Vasiliy Glazov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2018-06-28 09:36:37 --- Comment #8 from Vasiliy Glazov --- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/HQZCMB2MJYWJWLPCA5UBIC2IDAVL7IHD/
[Bug 1559864] Review Request: gluster-collectd plugin to collect metrics and push to collectd
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1559864
--- Comment #8 from Venkata R Edara ---
(In reply to Sachidananda Urs from comment #7)
> (In reply to Venkata R Edara from comment #4)
> > Sorry for delay, I made changes to spec file , now the build is success.
> >
> > SPEC:
> > https://github.com/gluster/gluster-collectd/blob/master/gluster-collectd.spec
> >
>
> * Instead of /usr/share use the _datadir macro.
>
> > Requires : collectd >= 5.8.0
> > Requires : collectd-python >= 5.8.0
>
> If the fedora releases targeted has latest above 5.8.x you can ignore the
> version numbers.
>
> > %{__python2} setup.py build
> * py2_build macro should achieve this. Have you tried it?
>
> Below is a comment from Ken Dreyer from another package. Since I see python2
> in many places, I think it is still relevant.
>
> Can this package work with Python 3 instead of Python 2? Maybe it would be a
> good idea to add a comment to the .spec file explaining why this will not
> work with Python 3 if that is the case.
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FinalizingFedoraSwitchtoPython3 is coming
> eventually. You could conditionalize py2/py3 with "%if %{?rhel} < 8" if you
> want to share the same .spec file across RHEL 7 and Fedora.
I added comment saying why Python 2 is supported. for Python 3 we have to test
many dependencies and packages. I added macro for _datadir. but for py2_build
macro the build is failing in FAS site.
here is link for successful build:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/redara/gluster-collectd/fedora-27-x86_64/00772030-gluster-collectd/
specfile:
https://github.com/gluster/gluster-collectd/blob/master/gluster-collectd.spec
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/WTFVZ5VTVVHPISRFXLJEPLXPQNRN66RV/
[Bug 1591745] Review Request: python-visvis - Python library for visualization of 1D to 4D data in an object oriented way
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1591745 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2018-06-28 10:07:19 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- python-visvis-1.11.1-3.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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/JVA2H33AHY4HXYHBRUAWKQDBA2KGINHF/
[Bug 1591811] Review Request: airspyone_host - AirSpy host tools and library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1591811 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2018-06-28 10:07:34 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- airspyone_host-1.0.9-3.20180615gitbfb66708.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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/IJRXP7KUDQZ24URTI6PETL5OVMTB7IGJ/
[Bug 1540553] Review Request: glusterd2 - new management daemon for GlusterFS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1540553 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2018-06-28 10:07:22 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- glusterd2-4.1.0-1.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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/C77JAENH7SJFFAWYWWN2MGKDQIKFHIPM/
[Bug 1592136] Review Request: perl-GraphViz2 - GraphViz2 Perl module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1592136 Bug 1592136 depends on bug 1592135, which changed state. Bug 1592135 Summary: Review Request: perl-Lingua-EN-PluralToSingular - Change an English plural to a singular https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1592135 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/UY2MNLRMLXE3X6NRKSCAZW44VIFRATVH/
[Bug 1592135] Review Request: perl-Lingua-EN-PluralToSingular - Change an English plural to a singular
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1592135 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2018-06-28 10:08:22 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Lingua-EN-PluralToSingular-0.19-2.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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/ESFVRZREYRJZ3R553CXQGPTIC5VITEFV/
[Bug 1592782] Review Request: perl-Syntax-Keyword-Gather - Implements the Perl 6 'gather/take' control structure in Perl 5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1592782 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2018-06-28 10:08:25 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Syntax-Keyword-Gather-1.003002-1.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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/MGNJZXOYNFJY4RFPJC5YYGTIRBVEA4QC/
[Bug 1593893] Review Request: perl-DBIx-Class-Visualizer - Visualize a DBIx::Class schema
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1593893 Bug 1593893 depends on bug 1592782, which changed state. Bug 1592782 Summary: Review Request: perl-Syntax-Keyword-Gather - Implements the Perl 6 'gather/take' control structure in Perl 5 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1592782 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/4WAKHC44QW6HMGVSZ5DIZLRPUDU7ZUZU/
[Bug 1594313] Review Request: java-11-openjdk - next LTS OpenJDK for Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313 Tom "spot" Callaway changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tcall...@redhat.com Blocks|182235 (FE-Legal) | --- Comment #25 from Tom "spot" Callaway --- Licensing patch looks correct. Lifting FE-Legal. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182235 [Bug 182235] Fedora Legal Tracker -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/5BNTZJSLYQV72BTBXCIKVJJQUW32GM4M/
[Bug 1596278] New: Review Request: apfs-fuse - A read-only FUSE driver for Apple's APFS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1596278 Bug ID: 1596278 Summary: Review Request: apfs-fuse - A read-only FUSE driver for Apple's APFS Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: bnoc...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL:https://fedorapeople.org/~hadess/apfs-fuse/apfs-fuse-20180628gitbe55741-1.fc28.src.rpm SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~hadess/apfs-fuse/apfs-fuse.spec Description: This project is a read-only FUSE driver for the new Apple File System. Since Apple didn't yet document the disk format of APFS, this driver should be considered experimental. It may not be able to read all files, it may return wrong data, or it may simply crash. Use at your own risk. But since it's read-only, at least the data on your apfs drive should be safe. Be aware that not all compression methods are supported yet (only the ones I have encountered so far). Thus, the driver may return compressed files instead of uncompressed ones. Fedora Account System Username: hadess -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/4GB4QIM56L24WGI2ALOI3XCIUUA5COBU/
[Bug 1596293] New: Review Request: gamemode - Optimise system performance for games on demand
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1596293 Bug ID: 1596293 Summary: Review Request: gamemode - Optimise system performance for games on demand Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ckell...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://github.com/gicmo/spec/blob/master/gamemode/gamemode.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/gicmo/nursery/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00772034-gamemode/gamemode-1.1-1.fc29.src.rpm Copr URL: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/gicmo/nursery Fedora Account System Username: gicmo Description: GameMode is a daemon/lib combo for GNU/Linux that allows games to request a set of optimisations be temporarily applied to the host OS. GameMode was designed primarily as a stop-gap solution to problems with the Intel and AMD CPU powersave or ondemand governors, but is now able to launch custom user defined plugins, and is intended to be expanded further, as there are a wealth of automation tasks one might want to apply. I did a scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=27918810 After manually enabling the user unit file, I tested that it is working as expected: Jun 28 17:03:17 cobalt /usr/bin/gamemoded[5802]: Adding game: 6209 [/usr/bin/sleep] Jun 28 17:03:17 cobalt /usr/bin/gamemoded[5802]: Entering Game Mode... Jun 28 17:03:17 cobalt /usr/bin/gamemoded[5802]: Requesting update of governor policy to performance Jun 28 17:03:17 cobalt pkexec[6210]: pam_systemd(polkit-1:session): Cannot create session: Already running in a session Jun 28 17:03:17 cobalt pkexec[6210]: pam_unix(polkit-1:session): session opened for user root by (uid=1000) Jun 28 17:03:17 cobalt gamemoded[5802]: Setting governors to performance Jun 28 17:04:17 cobalt /usr/bin/gamemoded[5802]: Removing game: 6209 [/usr/bin/sleep] Jun 28 17:04:18 cobalt gamemoded[5802]: Setting governors to powersave Jun 28 17:04:17 cobalt /usr/bin/gamemoded[5802]: Leaving Game Mode... Jun 28 17:04:17 cobalt /usr/bin/gamemoded[5802]: Requesting update of governor policy to powersave I think there are a couple of issues with the package, I think they should be fixed upstream, which I would like to get feedback here too: * Issues - location of the gamemoded daemon (currently /usr/bin) Why is it not in /usr/libexec/ (or better /usr/libexec/gamemode) - location of the libraries (currently /usr/lib) They are unversioned, but maybe that is ok, because they are internal, i.e. get dlopen'ed by the inlined functions from the inlined functions in the header. - system user vs system unit What is the reason that this is a user unit file, not a system one? Currently needs manual enablement and starting. - man page section for gamemoded (1 vs 8) It is a daemon, so should be in secton 8? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/OM67NNL3ZRNBS7AASFICFCPEM5R6FW4U/
[Bug 1594313] Review Request: java-11-openjdk - next LTS OpenJDK for Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313 Severin Gehwolf changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(tcallawa@redhat.c ||om) --- Comment #26 from Severin Gehwolf --- (In reply to Tom "spot" Callaway from comment #25) > Licensing patch looks correct. Lifting FE-Legal. Thanks, Tom! Have you seen this? https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/le...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/2QXHMTZ47DMMARJVI6PUMSYUPVFAGLCV/ Is it OK to use NTP as a licence identifier. It's not listed in the "Good Licenses" 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/AGXC3FANRMZ4BJCR24ABXFRFN2Q6A7MU/
[Bug 1594313] Review Request: java-11-openjdk - next LTS OpenJDK for Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #27 from jiri vanek ---
(In reply to Severin Gehwolf from comment #17)
> # to regenerate source0 and source1(shenandaoh hotspot) run update_package.sh
> # update_package.sh contains hardcoded repos, revisions, tags, and projects
> to regenerate the source archives
> # at the end it sed specfile and sources to match those new names
> # FIXME adapt the script to work better on shenandoah hotspot (After the
> jdk10 and removal of forest). Current source1 was done by manual delete
> # FIXME: adapt the sed to new specfile and sources or drop those parts
> # next update will be used to tweek those two files
> Source0: jdk-jdk-jdk-%{majorver}+%{buildver}.tar.xz
>
> I'm missing a short and concise:
>
> # Use this to generate the source tarball:
> # $ VERSION="jdk-11+19" PROJECT_NAME=jdk REPO_NAME=jdk \
> # bash generate_source_tarball.sh
Yes because I disagree with that approach.
Those flags do not have sense without wider context. Thats why I wont to tune
update_package.sh to be more straightforward and not doing redundant things.
>
> # Shenandoah HotSpot
> # current name used with tip and bleading edge may be incorrect
> Source1: jdk-shenandoah-jdk-ac148db384ee.tar.xz
>
> With JDK 11 I'm doubtful we should continue with the different hotspot for
> shenandoah arches approach. One single tarball for all arches would be
> better. We'll discuss this elsewhere. I'd suggest to leave shenandoah out
> for now and add it back in when the upstream repos are ready.
Yup. I have noticed your conversation. It would be really nice to have only one
source tarball. Still we agreed to have shenndaoh in LTS versions. What is the
purpose of not having it on since start?
What is the moment to add it? Forking? Will Shenandoah team be her i time? I
would match rather keep Shenandoah hotspot for 64b intel and arm, even on tip,
rather then waiting for some moment i future to add it.
By having it in will allow me to track it, and to ping Shenandoah team in time.
>
> # Systemtap tapsets. Zipped up to keep it small
> # Use 'generate_tarballs.sh' to generate the following tarballs
> # They are based on code contained in the IcedTea7 project
> # The script have hardcoded url and revision
> # FIXME discover what exactly is current systemtap from or
> # FIXME current systemtap is not working, new version is necessary
> Source8: systemtap-tapset-3.6.0pre02.tar.xz
>
> All of those comments above suggest we don't have a good way to regenerate
Nope, the regeneration of tapset is deterministic, but was not done properly in
one moment. IIRC, there was issue found and several chaotic pulls without
updating the clonning file.
> each tarball. I have a feeling that update_package.sh has too many
> responsibilities. Ideally there would be one script or one command per
> tarball doing just that: producing one source tarball in a reproducible way!
So the steps I wont t do:
- rename generate_tarballs.sh to regenerate_systemtap.sh
+ tune the script to point to current valid locations
+ get rid of the icon and desktop file as ithave nothing common now
+ we need to agree on systemtap versioning and releaseing (see stalled thread
on java-team)
- rename generate_source_tarball.sh to generate_openjdk_tarball.sh
+ keep it as it is
- modidy update_package.sh
+ maybe rename it to generate-sources.sh
+ simplyfy its logic.
++ stop touching specfile
++ stop touching sources
+ generate also ystemtap (if necessary)
and so on
- its reason really si to replace comment you suggest, by pushed, right-away
for use script.
Changes to update_package I would like to keep for next update of sources
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/UQYP3QFF77UQGXAPTCZ7EYJMV3WYSTJM/
[Bug 1588181] Review Request: python3-jwt - JSON Web Token implementation in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1588181 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2018-06-28 10:47:53 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- python3-jwt-1.6.4-1.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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/UMIKYO3XW42HNB5J3S7YDTYTXL6QZRTX/
[Bug 1594313] Review Request: java-11-openjdk - next LTS OpenJDK for Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313 --- Comment #28 from jiri vanek --- (In reply to Severin Gehwolf from comment #23) > $ cut -d':' -f2 review-java-11-openjdk/licensecheck.out | sort | uniq > Apache GPL (v2) > Apache (v2.0) > Apache (v2.0) GENERATED FILE > BSD (2 clause) > BSD (3 clause) > BSD (3 clause) GENERATED FILE > BSD (3 clause) GPL (v2) > BSD (4 clause) > CC0 GPL (v2) > CDDL > Freetype > Freetype GENERATED FILE > GENERATED FILE > GPL (v2) > GPL (v2) GENERATED FILE > GPL (v2 or later) > GPL (v2) (with incorrect FSF address) > GPL (v2) (with incorrect FSF address) GENERATED FILE > ISC > ISC MIT (old) > LGPL (v2.1 or later) > MIT (CMU, retain warranty disclaimer) > MIT (old) > MIT/X11 (BSD like) > MIT/X11 (BSD like) GPL (v2) > *No copyright* Apache (v2.0) > *No copyright* Apache (v2.0) GENERATED FILE > *No copyright* Apache (v2.0) GPL > *No copyright* CC0 > *No copyright* GENERATED FILE > *No copyright* GPL > *No copyright* GPL (v2) > *No copyright* MIT/X11 (BSD like) > *No copyright* NTP > *No copyright* Public domain GPL (v2) > *No copyright* Public domain GPL (v2) GENERATED FILE > *No copyright* UNKNOWN > NTP > NTP (legal disclaimer) > Public domain GPL (v2) > UNKNOWN > zlib/libpng > zlib/libpng MIT/X11 (BSD like) > > All licenses should be accounted for except NTP. See comment 21. This was the state for lder JDK8 and jdk7 before. Gnu_andrew changed those to current state in rhel, and his arguemntatnion on that is pretty good. Area you sure you wont blindly add all from those 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/NHW72KMB2MEKKZAMBYNUFAMOGWMNLTTJ/
[Bug 1576413] Review Request: boom-boot - boot manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1576413 --- Comment #23 from Neal Gompa --- Yeah, I've got a couple of concerns: * Why are we stuffing everything into a "python3-boom" subpackage? Why can't most of the "bootloader content" be in the main "boom-boot" package? * Since boom can be used with grub2 or sd-boot, shouldn't the grub2 files be in their own subpackage that requires grub2 to be installed? Then you can use a rich Supplements statement to install it automatically as needed. For example: "Supplements: (boom-boot and grub2)" on "grub2-boom" (or "grub2-boom-boot" or "boom-boot-grub2") will ensure it's auto-installed in the event grub2 is on the system. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/JNK46CVHNRZBJJAWYCIHB6J3SHQ3JSPL/
[Bug 1594858] Review Request: tiny-dnn - Header only, dependency-free deep learning framework in C++14
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594858 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- tiny-dnn-1.0.0-0.a3.3.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-bcdef7516b -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/UQNCU2L2AEP5DZLSV4Q5WMP5T6XENZ4D/
[Bug 1590988] Review Request: freight-container - rpm/ systemd based container utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1590988 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- freight-container-0-0.3.20180613gitd1d03af.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-2018-29e781cb92 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/LYMKAL36LPJ67MPAFJAVTHXQ74JNHMIB/
[Bug 1594134] Review Request: vulkan-headers - Vulkan Header files and API registry
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594134 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- mesa-18.0.5-2.fc28, vulkan-headers-1.1.77.0-1.fc28, vulkan-loader-1.1.77.0-4.fc28, vulkan-tools-1.1.77.0-1.fc28, vulkan-validation-layers-1.1.77.0-3.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-c8bcb5b672 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/65F5PAKMJEFQJWLBN5VW2DOXSQCR24UP/
[Bug 1595099] Review Request: vulkan-loader - Vulkan loader
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1595099 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- mesa-18.0.5-2.fc28, vulkan-headers-1.1.77.0-1.fc28, vulkan-loader-1.1.77.0-4.fc28, vulkan-tools-1.1.77.0-1.fc28, vulkan-validation-layers-1.1.77.0-3.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-c8bcb5b672 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/SEXBMTYBZV6AS6II7IFDWW4J6NRQZJID/
[Bug 1595308] Review Request: vulkan-tools - Vulkan tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1595308 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- mesa-18.0.5-2.fc28, vulkan-headers-1.1.77.0-1.fc28, vulkan-loader-1.1.77.0-4.fc28, vulkan-tools-1.1.77.0-1.fc28, vulkan-validation-layers-1.1.77.0-3.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-c8bcb5b672 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/ZL7RBS35RGN6PLYEBPV3D24OFZ756ILD/
[Bug 1595305] Review Request: vulkan-validation-layers - Vulkan validation layers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1595305 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- mesa-18.0.5-2.fc28, vulkan-headers-1.1.77.0-1.fc28, vulkan-loader-1.1.77.0-4.fc28, vulkan-tools-1.1.77.0-1.fc28, vulkan-validation-layers-1.1.77.0-3.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-c8bcb5b672 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/XGZPUWV7FNQLWGSULVFYE7665ZAJ5YKB/
[Bug 1594968] Review Request: R-itertools - Iterator Tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594968 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- R-itertools-0.1.3-1.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-2018-2e139435ad -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/VE76ISMTZDCYXQJRDOAFXKAPDNI3KLMI/
[Bug 1538824] Review Request: python-grabbit - Get grabby with file trees
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1538824 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- python-grabbit-0.2.0-1.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-2018-1ec02c2917 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/UFNC65G37QYQ4YWIG7V2EF7ITPRZOEGS/
[Bug 1594313] Review Request: java-11-openjdk - next LTS OpenJDK for Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #29 from Severin Gehwolf ---
(In reply to jiri vanek from comment #27)
> (In reply to Severin Gehwolf from comment #17)
> > # to regenerate source0 and source1(shenandaoh hotspot) run
> > update_package.sh
> > # update_package.sh contains hardcoded repos, revisions, tags, and projects
> > to regenerate the source archives
> > # at the end it sed specfile and sources to match those new names
> > # FIXME adapt the script to work better on shenandoah hotspot (After the
> > jdk10 and removal of forest). Current source1 was done by manual delete
> > # FIXME: adapt the sed to new specfile and sources or drop those parts
> > # next update will be used to tweek those two files
> > Source0: jdk-jdk-jdk-%{majorver}+%{buildver}.tar.xz
> >
> > I'm missing a short and concise:
> >
> > # Use this to generate the source tarball:
> > # $ VERSION="jdk-11+19" PROJECT_NAME=jdk REPO_NAME=jdk \
> > # bash generate_source_tarball.sh
>
> Yes because I disagree with that approach.
> Those flags do not have sense without wider context. Thats why I wont to
> tune update_package.sh to be more straightforward and not doing redundant
> things.
> >
> > # Shenandoah HotSpot
> > # current name used with tip and bleading edge may be incorrect
> > Source1: jdk-shenandoah-jdk-ac148db384ee.tar.xz
> >
> > With JDK 11 I'm doubtful we should continue with the different hotspot for
> > shenandoah arches approach. One single tarball for all arches would be
> > better. We'll discuss this elsewhere. I'd suggest to leave shenandoah out
> > for now and add it back in when the upstream repos are ready.
>
> Yup. I have noticed your conversation. It would be really nice to have only
> one source tarball. Still we agreed to have shenndaoh in LTS versions. What
> is the purpose of not having it on since start?
> What is the moment to add it? Forking? Will Shenandoah team be her i time?
> I would match rather keep Shenandoah hotspot for 64b intel and arm, even on
> tip, rather then waiting for some moment i future to add it.
> By having it in will allow me to track it, and to ping Shenandoah team in
> time.
It seems too risky to keep this without by-in from Shenandoah folks. This has
the potential to break x86_64 and aarch64 in strange ways.
> >
> > # Systemtap tapsets. Zipped up to keep it small
> > # Use 'generate_tarballs.sh' to generate the following tarballs
> > # They are based on code contained in the IcedTea7 project
> > # The script have hardcoded url and revision
> > # FIXME discover what exactly is current systemtap from or
> > # FIXME current systemtap is not working, new version is necessary
> > Source8: systemtap-tapset-3.6.0pre02.tar.xz
> >
> > All of those comments above suggest we don't have a good way to regenerate
>
> Nope, the regeneration of tapset is deterministic, but was not done properly
> in one moment. IIRC, there was issue found and several chaotic pulls without
> updating the clonning file.
> > each tarball. I have a feeling that update_package.sh has too many
> > responsibilities. Ideally there would be one script or one command per
> > tarball doing just that: producing one source tarball in a reproducible way!
>
> So the steps I wont t do:
> - rename generate_tarballs.sh to regenerate_systemtap.sh
> + tune the script to point to current valid locations
> + get rid of the icon and desktop file as ithave nothing common now
> + we need to agree on systemtap versioning and releaseing (see stalled
> thread on java-team)
> - rename generate_source_tarball.sh to generate_openjdk_tarball.sh
> + keep it as it is
> - modidy update_package.sh
> + maybe rename it to generate-sources.sh
> + simplyfy its logic.
> ++ stop touching specfile
> ++ stop touching sources
HUGE +1
> + generate also ystemtap (if necessary)
> and so on
> - its reason really si to replace comment you suggest, by pushed,
> right-away for use script.
OK. Those are reasonable steps. Just to be clear on the expectations, which
I'll make a requirement for this review to pass:
- For each source tarball there need to be clear instructions as to how
to generate it. That includes all needed parameters to get the exact same
tarball (reproducible tarballs) in a comment.
I'll be testing it for each tarball individually.
- There need to be switches to the script to just generate one tarball or
alternatively document steps as mentioned above,
VERSION="jdk-11+19"PROJECT_NAME=jdk REPO_NAME=jdk bash generate_source...,
> Changes to update_package I would like to keep for next update of sources
Like I said, if you are fond of update_package.sh, then this needs to get fixed
immediately (or it'll never get fixed).
FWIW, with mono-repository these would also be possible instructions for the
main tarball:
$ wget http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/jdk/archive/jdk-11+19.tar.bz2
$ tar -xf jdk-jdk-11+19.tar.bz2
$ cd jdk-jdk-11+19
$ rm -rf src/jdk.crypto.ec/share/native/
[Bug 1558683] Review Request: python-ucsmsdk - Python SDK for Cisco UCSM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1558683 --- Comment #22 from Sandhya Dasu --- Updated .spec file with the python2-parsing runtime requirements. Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/sadasu/ucsmsdk-rpm/master/python-ucsmsdk.spec SRPM URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/sadasu/ucsmsdk-rpm/master/python-ucsmsdk-0.9.3.2-1.el7.src.rpm Description: SRPM and .spec files for python-ucsmsdk version 0.9.3.2 to be added as a new package to Fedora. Fedora Account System Username: sdasu -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/APVMMPIIDAY7P7JKSK6HFYMGQYP5EHKE/
[Bug 1594313] Review Request: java-11-openjdk - next LTS OpenJDK for Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313 --- Comment #30 from Severin Gehwolf --- (In reply to jiri vanek from comment #28) > (In reply to Severin Gehwolf from comment #23) > > $ cut -d':' -f2 review-java-11-openjdk/licensecheck.out | sort | uniq > > Apache GPL (v2) > > Apache (v2.0) > > Apache (v2.0) GENERATED FILE > > BSD (2 clause) > > BSD (3 clause) > > BSD (3 clause) GENERATED FILE > > BSD (3 clause) GPL (v2) > > BSD (4 clause) > > CC0 GPL (v2) > > CDDL > > Freetype > > Freetype GENERATED FILE > > GENERATED FILE > > GPL (v2) > > GPL (v2) GENERATED FILE > > GPL (v2 or later) > > GPL (v2) (with incorrect FSF address) > > GPL (v2) (with incorrect FSF address) GENERATED FILE > > ISC > > ISC MIT (old) > > LGPL (v2.1 or later) > > MIT (CMU, retain warranty disclaimer) > > MIT (old) > > MIT/X11 (BSD like) > > MIT/X11 (BSD like) GPL (v2) > > *No copyright* Apache (v2.0) > > *No copyright* Apache (v2.0) GENERATED FILE > > *No copyright* Apache (v2.0) GPL > > *No copyright* CC0 > > *No copyright* GENERATED FILE > > *No copyright* GPL > > *No copyright* GPL (v2) > > *No copyright* MIT/X11 (BSD like) > > *No copyright* NTP > > *No copyright* Public domain GPL (v2) > > *No copyright* Public domain GPL (v2) GENERATED FILE > > *No copyright* UNKNOWN > > NTP > > NTP (legal disclaimer) > > Public domain GPL (v2) > > UNKNOWN > > zlib/libpng > > zlib/libpng MIT/X11 (BSD like) > > > > All licenses should be accounted for except NTP. See comment 21. > > This was the state for lder JDK8 and jdk7 before. Gnu_andrew changed those > to current state in rhel, and his arguemntatnion on that is pretty good. Well, this is JDK 11, not JDK 8 or 7 :) No more Java EE and corba in JDK 11: http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/320, harfbuzz has been added: http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/258, freetype sources have been added (yet, we don't build them). > Area you sure you wont blindly add all from those list? No, not blindly. This was in reference to the suggested patch in comment 21 (which should be added once we have NTP clarification). I.e. the current license list as specified by "License" in the spec accounts for all of the above except for NTP. Hence, my email to the legal list for clarification. A reviewer is supposed to check licenses in sources. I've run licensecheck on them and this came of it. Then I've manually verified suspicious items. Does that clear things up? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/ILJ3Z6JEZ2ZSKK6VQYHIOQBTNBCUUZJ6/
[Bug 1594313] Review Request: java-11-openjdk - next LTS OpenJDK for Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313 --- Comment #31 from jiri vanek --- (In reply to Severin Gehwolf from comment #18) > Package Review > == > > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > [ ] = Manual review needed (FE-Legal clarification) > > > Issues: > === > - Package java-11-openjdk provides "java" and "jre". Intentional? > Are we ready for people requiring "java" to get JDK-11? For jre, yes, for sdk, no. This is aligned with java-openjdk, and up to now no issue caused. The versionless sdk provides are the onse which have weight, and those are not here - search for commented out provides which makes the crucial differences. From other part, maybe you will recall the issue with to much commented out provides when we were adding jdk7 to rhel6. That was quite disaster. > - Some licenses in sources are not listed in "License" field. > I'm blocking FE-Legal for a review. Note that I've asked about > NTP license here: Ok. this will be fixed by your patch as you write above > > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/le...@lists.fedoraproject.org/ > thread/2QXHMTZ47DMMARJVI6PUMSYUPVFAGLCV/ > - Please remove no longer needed defattr in %files. See below. > - Some descriptions/summaries exceed 79 characters. See: This is so evil law... Its 21century. 99% monitors have width of 160 chars aat *minimum*. Will be fixed by best effort > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#description-line-too- > long > Please fix descriptions/summaries. See rpmlint output. > - There are many typos in the spec file. Please run: > $ hunspell java-11-openjdk.spec > and fix them. Funny. Manual correction by three people stay its place during java-openjdk review Running it now. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/2WTSTPAGM75B7QO4ESWLLQ3RQ45K7DPV/
[Bug 1594313] Review Request: java-11-openjdk - next LTS OpenJDK for Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #32 from jiri vanek ---
> It seems too risky to keep this without by-in from Shenandoah folks. This
> has the potential to break x86_64 and aarch64 in strange ways.
Are they really out? I'm really afraid of leaving (again) behind. Can we keep
it in untill the review is finished, so all is done with it in mind?
If the shenandoah repo is still not accptable at that time, Then I will bow and
remove it.
Hmm?
>
> >
> > So the steps I wont t do:
> > - rename generate_tarballs.sh to regenerate_systemtap.sh
> > + tune the script to point to current valid locations
> > + get rid of the icon and desktop file as ithave nothing common now
> > + we need to agree on systemtap versioning and releaseing (see stalled
> > thread on java-team)
> > - rename generate_source_tarball.sh to generate_openjdk_tarball.sh
> > + keep it as it is
> > - modidy update_package.sh
> > + maybe rename it to generate-sources.sh
> > + simplyfy its logic.
> > ++ stop touching specfile
> > ++ stop touching sources
++ prit a bit of what is ahppening
>
> HUGE +1
Thanx for adding courage :)
>
> > + generate also systemtap (if necessary)
> > and so on
> > - its reason really si to replace comment you suggest, by pushed,
> > right-away for use script.
>
> OK. Those are reasonable steps. Just to be clear on the expectations, which
> I'll make a requirement for this review to pass:
>
> - For each source tarball there need to be clear instructions as to how
> to generate it. That includes all needed parameters to get the exact same
> tarball (reproducible tarballs) in a comment.
> I'll be testing it for each tarball individually.
> - There need to be switches to the script to just generate one tarball or
> alternatively document steps as mentioned above,
> VERSION="jdk-11+19"PROJECT_NAME=jdk REPO_NAME=jdk bash generate_source...,
. I can survive comment saying what envrionmet variable to set to what :(
>
> > Changes to update_package I would like to keep for next update of sources
>
> Like I said, if you are fond of update_package.sh, then this needs to get
> fixed immediately (or it'll never get fixed).
ok.
It should not be my workflow (although it grown into it), it should be genereic
helper. If it do not serve that, then it should be removed.
Still I like it *much more* then comment with "VERSION=..."
>
> FWIW, with mono-repository these would also be possible instructions for the
> main tarball:
>
> $ wget http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/jdk/archive/jdk-11+19.tar.bz2
> $ tar -xf jdk-jdk-11+19.tar.bz2
> $ cd jdk-jdk-11+19
> $ rm -rf src/jdk.crypto.ec/share/native/libsunec/impl
> $ patch -Np1 < %{SOURCEX}
> $ cd ..
> $ tar -cJf jdk-jdk-11+19.tar.xz jdk-jdk-11+19
The monolitic repo have huge performance problems when cloned.
If this will be faster I will swithc to it. Thanx for reminding this approach.
btw - you highligh the reproducible sources - you mean after unpack, right? Or
do you wont to tkae similar approach as
https://src.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/java-1.8.0-openjdk.git/tree/repackReproduciblePolycies.sh?h=f28
did?
Is it even possible with tar.xz?
Thanx for review!
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/JR74J7OFCWYYILF3FWQW5UEOOT7ZZ6P6/
[Bug 1594313] Review Request: java-11-openjdk - next LTS OpenJDK for Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313 Severin Gehwolf changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment|0 |1 #1455281 is|| obsolete|| Flags|needinfo?(tcallawa@redhat.c | |om) | --- Comment #33 from Severin Gehwolf --- Created attachment 1455380 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1455380&action=edit Patch with suggested license changes. Updated license change patch in-line with fedora legal feedback. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/W256I2HCLPDASHL77ND6S26FJKEOPQBH/
[Bug 1594313] Review Request: java-11-openjdk - next LTS OpenJDK for Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313 --- Comment #34 from Severin Gehwolf --- (In reply to jiri vanek from comment #32) > > It seems too risky to keep this without by-in from Shenandoah folks. This > > has the potential to break x86_64 and aarch64 in strange ways. > > Are they really out? I'm really afraid of leaving (again) behind. Can we > keep it in untill the review is finished, so all is done with it in mind? > If the shenandoah repo is still not accptable at that time, Then I will bow > and remove it. > Hmm? It's been suggested that http://hg.openjdk.java.net/shenandoah/jdk is the Shenandoah dev forest and we should not be using it. We should be using http://hg.openjdk.java.net/shenandoah/jdk11 once jdk/jdk11 has been forked. Either way, we'll be changing sources in an update: jdk/jdk => jdk/jdk11 or jdk/jdk => shenandoah/jdk11 We should just use jdk/jdk now for all arches and move to shenandoah/jdk11 once it exists. There shouldn't be any shenandoah specific things in the spec file as far as I understand it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/TK6TNMLAIW72RH4V6VHAC4I27YHEII37/
[Bug 1596355] New: Review Request: piper - GTK application to configure gaming mice
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1596355 Bug ID: 1596355 Summary: Review Request: piper - GTK application to configure gaming mice Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: vit...@easycoding.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://github.com/EasyCoding/piper/raw/master/piper.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/xvitaly/ecrepo/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00772094-piper/piper-0.2.900-1.20180214git5f6ed20.fc29.src.rpm Description: Piper is a GTK+ application to configure gaming mice, using libratbag via ratbagd. Fedora Account System Username: xvitaly -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/B622WYG6S23KSS7M2VQFJWJPBLJRFED6/
[Bug 1596293] Review Request: gamemode - Optimise system performance for games on demand
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1596293 --- Comment #1 from Christian Kellner --- Ok, nevermind about the user unit file/system unit file and the manual enabling; I got confused about system daemon and user systemd scriptlets. Anyway, I made a patch to have the service be dbus-activatable (filled upstream[1]) and removed the wrong dbus scriptlets. Updated spec file and patch: https://github.com/gicmo/spec/tree/master/gamemode New build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/gicmo/nursery/build/772093/ [1] https://github.com/FeralInteractive/gamemode/pull/62 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/6TSJ63SWMR2XB3CWMOCDIS2UNCPIELUA/
[Bug 1596363] New: Review Request: matrix-structs - De/ Serializable types for events, requests/responses and identifiers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1596363 Bug ID: 1596363 Summary: Review Request: matrix-structs - De/Serializable types for events, requests/responses and identifiers Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: vit...@easycoding.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://github.com/EasyCoding/nheko/raw/master/matrix-structs.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/xvitaly/matrix/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00770495-matrix-structs/matrix-structs-0.1.0-1.20180622gitc24cb9b.fc29.src.rpm Description: Collection of structs used in the Matrix protocol with built in serialization/deserialization to/from json. Fedora Account System Username: xvitaly -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/YYXBW2A5GIKTYDKUMAXYY25TVXRNHOYR/
[Bug 1596364] New: Review Request: mtxclient - Client API library for Matrix
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1596364 Bug ID: 1596364 Summary: Review Request: mtxclient - Client API library for Matrix Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: vit...@easycoding.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://github.com/EasyCoding/nheko/raw/master/mtxclient.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/xvitaly/matrix/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00770496-mtxclient/mtxclient-0.1.0-1.20180622git96fd35e.fc29.src.rpm Description: Client API library for the Matrix protocol, built on top of Boost.Asio. Fedora Account System Username: xvitaly -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/IRNDCWP55HIVGLL5MU7WTO4YC3W4DCJ6/
[Bug 1596366] New: Review Request: python-django-helpdesk - Django-helpdesk - A Django powered ticket tracker for small enterprise.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1596366 Bug ID: 1596366 Summary: Review Request: python-django-helpdesk - Django-helpdesk - A Django powered ticket tracker for small enterprise. Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: bazanlui...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://lbazan.fedorapeople.org/python-django-helpdesk.spec SRPM URL: https://lbazan.fedorapeople.org/python-django-helpdesk-0.2.7-1.fc28.src.rpm Description: Django-helpdesk - A Django powered ticket tracker for small enterprise. Fedora Account System Username:lbazan -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/BOWIKHP2DUMB3P43LIPAC4B5UUBVYXYF/
[Bug 1595493] Review Request: python-sphinxcontrib-phpdomain - Sphinx extension to enable documenting PHP code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1595493 --- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-sphinxcontrib-phpdomain -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/EEN3Q5GH5FLOGNP7MGJ4ZAA2IJ2N2ZRU/
[Bug 1595493] Review Request: python-sphinxcontrib-phpdomain - Sphinx extension to enable documenting PHP code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1595493 Christian Glombek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2018-06-28 13:50:52 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/5TNYFY3JN3FWUNBVGQFJLQ2VTOGBOBS2/
[Bug 1595313] Review Request: php-opencloud-openstack - PHP SDK for OpenStack clouds
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1595313 Bug 1595313 depends on bug 1595493, which changed state. Bug 1595493 Summary: Review Request: python-sphinxcontrib-phpdomain - Sphinx extension to enable documenting PHP code https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1595493 What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/E6OURJJ2OIS6HHJ74JKJASAMCSKNAYLC/
[Bug 1519785] Review Request: notepadqq - An advanced text editor for developers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1519785
Ben Rosser changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #24 from Ben Rosser ---
Great!
I think everything looks good now then... all my other comments have been
addressed. I have sponsored you into the packagers group, and will now go ahead
and approve the package.
You should now be able to follow the instructions on this page below the "Get
Sponsored" section to create a git repository for the package and build it in
Fedora.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Get_Sponsored
Sorry again this took a while to process! Feel free to contact me either by
email or over IRC (my handle is "TC01" on all the Freenode Fedora IRC channels)
if you have packaging questions, about this or any other package. :)
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: 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: "Apache (v2.0)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated",
"MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSL (v1.0)", "SIL (v1.1)", "ISC", "*No
copyright* BSD (unspecified)", "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)",
"*No copyright* MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)".
1472 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bjr/Programming/fedora/reviews/1519785-notepadqq/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[-]: 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.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: 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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File
[Bug 1586291] Review Request: slop - Select Operation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1586291 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | --- Comment #15 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Welcome to the packager group! 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/LASNG6EUMX45QVJWJHKTPHBT7OTX5L4I/
[Bug 1586291] Review Request: slop - Select Operation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1586291 --- Comment #16 from Alois Mahdal --- > 20:20 <+mboddu> netvor: Okay, here's what we can do, can you comment on both > of the tickets that with you RH account saying that you want to give them to > "netvor", that way we can verify/confirm it is you Hi, I'd like to transfer this to my other identity, ie. @netvor under FAS. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/YLKO625ACGJXNA4AOODL7YQCUYVLOKJZ/
[Bug 1595420] Review Request: ydiff - View colored, incremental diff
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1595420 --- Comment #8 from Alois Mahdal --- > 20:20 <+mboddu> netvor: Okay, here's what we can do, can you comment on both > of the tickets that with you RH account saying that you want to give them to > "netvor", that way we can verify/confirm it is you Hi, I'd like to transfer this to my other identity, ie. @netvor under FAS. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/5UUYJPBWI2ZQOEGOHBQP43FX2E7CSTZU/
[Bug 832698] Review Request: CERT Triage tools - a gdb extension similar to microsoft's !exploitable
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832698 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed||2018-06-28 14:30:39 --- Comment #12 from Jason Tibbitts --- It does seem that in the meantime this package was reviewed and accepted under the new name the developer chose after leaving CERT. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1472405 *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/ET37YN4LHYMA56YZFVG2VIFWGEN6GZGA/
[Bug 1472405] Review Request: gdb-exploitable - GDB extension for exploitability
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1472405 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bress...@redhat.com --- Comment #4 from Jason Tibbitts --- *** Bug 832698 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/NCXIPQVEI5UP2A7IPDJQ4EV2GIFFKW6A/
[Bug 1586291] Review Request: slop - Select Operation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1586291 --- Comment #17 from Mohan Boddu --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/slop -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/AJCM5EIK7GCNCZFAXJBIJBA2VHPMJDH2/
[Bug 1595420] Review Request: ydiff - View colored, incremental diff
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1595420 --- Comment #9 from Mohan Boddu --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ydiff -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/XLXX3IKTCM4K5LZT4ISUVEHNGXGNGP2O/
[Bug 1596399] New: Review Request: mingw-vulkan-tools - MinGW Windows vulkan-tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1596399 Bug ID: 1596399 Summary: Review Request: mingw-vulkan-tools - MinGW Windows vulkan-tools Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: manisan...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-vulkan-tools.spec SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-vulkan-tools-1.1.77-1.fc29.src.rpm Description: MinGW Windows vulkan-tools Fedora Account System Username: smani -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/QDJ3M2QYU7XXIEW3J5WK7BZQ63III7GD/
[Bug 1595940] Review Request: mingw-glslang - MinGW Windows glslang library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1595940 --- Comment #2 from Sandro Mani --- Thanks so much as always for all your reviews! Let me know if I can review something in exchange. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/DHJ6P2RKPRD7LD5ZER4ONS2GTZQ62PC6/
[Bug 1595940] Review Request: mingw-glslang - MinGW Windows glslang library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1595940 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mingw-glslang -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/VHRRB5FCF2ME63SW5UNAQ634ZN32RI3P/
[Bug 1595941] Review Request: mingw-spirv-headers - MinGW Windows spirv-headers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1595941 --- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mingw-spirv-headers -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/WNDN4B2E7TSE2DSA5XACAWPGK5SLDMEL/
[Bug 1595943] Review Request: mingw-spirv-tools - MinGW Windows spirv-tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1595943 --- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mingw-spirv-tools -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/EMGXHQKYXIIV2KEAMPKYHTYRQJKERAPO/
[Bug 1595945] Review Request: mingw-vulkan-headers - MinGW Windows vulkan-headers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1595945 --- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mingw-vulkan-headers -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/YDJOKVVT4EY7HU35E5MN6A4XAZPQSRHG/
[Bug 1595947] Review Request: mingw-vulkan-loader - MinGW Windows vulkan-loader library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1595947 --- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mingw-vulkan-loader -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/FJJFXOW3WGQOPCNVEFWJM56BXP642JPW/
[Bug 1595948] Review Request: mingw-vulkan-validation-layers - MinGW Windows vulkan-validation-layers library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1595948 --- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mingw-vulkan-validation-layers -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/42PRDA7RFO3ZNQQMC6PUKVUHCE7IWVBX/
[Bug 1595940] Review Request: mingw-glslang - MinGW Windows glslang library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1595940 Sandro Mani changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2018-06-28 17:45:45 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/HNXL5PTKAWCPL5HP7OHCAKAX5ZNEPDEQ/
