[Bug 1713767] Review Request: libnbd - NBD client library in userspace
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1713767 --- Comment #14 from Björn Persson --- Some things I've found so far: · Please remove the condition around Source1 and Source2. Those files will be left out of the source package if verify_tarball_signature is turned off, and then that source package can't be rebuilt with verification enabled. I can't see that it will hurt to have the files present even if verification is disabled. · Would it be possible to provide a URL to the keyring? Use HTTPS if at all possible. Then anyone can verify that the keyring in the package is the same as upstream. (The build would of course still use the keyring in the Git repository.) · lib/nbd-protocol.h has a BSD license, so I think the license tag for the library becomes "LGPLv2+ and BSD". · The license tag of libnbd-devel should include the license of the examples. At the moment I'm not sure what to call that license. · There's an outdated FSF address in python/run-python-tests.in and python/t/*. Since you're the upstream author if I understand correctly, I think you should correct the address. The FSF seem to use a URL instead of a postal address nowadays. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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
[Bug 1706548] Review Request: simple-dnf - Simple graphical utility for DNF package management
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1706548 --- Comment #3 from Guillaume Fayard --- Thanks for your comments! (In reply to Fabian Affolter from comment #1) > Just some comments to get started: > > - Docs are missing -> %doc README.md > - LICENSE is missing -> %license LICENSE > - Is "poetry>=0.12" provided by python3-dnfdaemon? > - .desktop file be included in the source as other distribution may need it > too > - Changelog entry is missing release > - There are translations (locales/fr/LC_MESSAGES). They should be included. Poetry is just a dev dependency. What do you mean by including locale files? Package has been updated: - SPEC: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/arkelis/simple-dnf/fedora-30-x86_64/00908268-simple-dnf/simple-dnf.spec - SRPM: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/arkelis/simple-dnf/fedora-30-x86_64/00908268-simple-dnf/simple-dnf-0.1.2-3.fc30.src.rpm > My biggest concern is that this package is a fork of > https://github.com/hyakosm/simple_dnf. Yes it is a fork, but changes are meant to be merged into upstream (main maintainer is currently busy). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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
[Bug 1712175] Review Request: remotely - Simple VNC viewer for the GNOME desktop environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1712175 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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
[Bug 1712175] Review Request: remotely - Simple VNC viewer for the GNOME desktop environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1712175 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@fabian-affolter.ch Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@fabian-affolter.ch Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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
[Bug 1713767] Review Request: libnbd - NBD client library in userspace
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1713767 --- Comment #13 from Miro Hrončok --- Yes, __requires_exclude_from was indeed supposed to be __provides_exclude_from -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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
[Bug 1713913] New: Review Request: python-javalang - A pure Python Java parser and tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1713913 Bug ID: 1713913 Summary: Review Request: python-javalang - A pure Python Java parser and tools Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: m...@fabian-affolter.ch QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-javalang.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-javalang-0.12.0-1.fc30.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/c2nes/javalang Description: javalang is a pure Python library for working with Java source code. javalang provides a lexer and parser targeting Java 8. Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=35058765 rpmlint output: $ rpmlint python-javalang-0.12.0-1.fc30.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint python3-javalang-0.12.0-1.fc30.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Fedora Account System Username: fab -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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
[Bug 1713913] Review Request: python-javalang - A pure Python Java parser and tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1713913 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||python-javalang -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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
[Bug 1692166] Review Request: gnatcoll-db - The GNAT Components Collection – database packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1692166
--- Comment #7 from Björn Persson ---
(In reply to Richard W.M. Jones from comment #4)
> Most obvious things from a manual review of the spec file. These seem both
> complex and unnecessary:
>
> # This readme file may be of some value to developers:
> mkdir --parents %{buildroot}%{_docdir}/gnatcoll/xref
> cp --preserve=timestamps xref/README.md \
> --target-directory=%{buildroot}%{_docdir}/gnatcoll/xref
There are three reasons for this:
1: It keeps all the Gnatcoll documentation together under
/usr/share/doc/gnatcoll instead of relegating some files to
/usr/share/doc/gnatcoll-bindings-devel and /usr/share/doc/gnatcoll-db-devel.
2: Without the subdirectory named "xref" nothing in the pathname indicates that
this readme file is specific to the xref component.
3: If upstream writes something useful in the other readme files in a future
release, then subdirectories will definitely be necessary as they're all named
README.md. gnatcoll-bindings-devel includes three different README.md in
separate subdirectories.
> %license COPYING3
That would make it /usr/share/licenses/gnatcoll-sql/COPYING3. That seems
inappropriate for a license that applies to all the components of gnatcoll-db.
> I don't know if the following is needed (because I believe that rpaths are
> already
> checked by RPM), but I guess it doesn't do any harm. Most likely it can be
> deleted:
>
> %check
> %{_rpmconfigdir}/check-rpaths
As far as I understand this is not done automatically yet, but there is a
proposal to do so:
https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/886
We have an Ada-specific policy to run check-rpaths because the GNAT tools
insert runpaths by default and the option to disable this didn't always work in
the past. We should be able to relax this policy after the FPC's proposal gets
implemented.
(In reply to Richard W.M. Jones from comment #5)
> gnatcoll-xref.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gnatinspect
> gnatcoll-db-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gnatcoll_all2ada
> gnatcoll-db-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gnatcoll_db2ada
>
> - if one is available upstream it should be added, or you could write them;
> however
>it's not a review blocker
In gnatcoll-doc (built from the source package gnatcoll) there is a manual in
HTML and PDF, but most of the information about gnatinspect and gnatcoll_db2ada
has been removed in this release. The removal is probably related to the
splitting of the source repository. I hope they intend to add the documentation
back as separate manuals eventually.
> gnatcoll-db.src:83: W: unversioned-explicit-provides gnatinspect
> gnatcoll-db.src:108: W: unversioned-explicit-provides gnatcoll_db2ada
> gnatcoll-db.src:108: W: unversioned-explicit-provides gnatcoll_all2ada
>
> - this is a bug; the Provides lines should all have versions, ie:
>
> Provides: gnatinspect = %{version}-%{release}
> ...
> Provides: gnatcoll_db2ada = %{version}-%{release}
> Provides: gnatcoll_all2ada = %{version}-%{release}
OK, I'll fix this. An updated package is coming.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this 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
[Bug 1709825] Review Request: xortool - A tool for XOR cipher analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1709825 --- Comment #4 from Fabian Affolter --- Updated files: Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/xortool.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/xortool-0.98-1.fc30.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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
[Bug 1713906] New: Review Request: python-aiozeroconf- An asyncio/pure Python implementation of mDNS service discovery
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1713906 Bug ID: 1713906 Summary: Review Request: python-aiozeroconf- An asyncio/pure Python implementation of mDNS service discovery Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: m...@fabian-affolter.ch QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-aiozeroconf.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-aiozeroconf-0.1.8-1.fc30.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/frawau/aiozeroconf Description: A pure Python Multicast DNS Service Discovery Library. Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=35056897 rpmlint output: $ rpmlint python-aiozeroconf-0.1.8-1.fc30.src.rpm python-aiozeroconf.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) asyncio -> syncopation python-aiozeroconf.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) mDNS -> mans, mdse 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. $ rpmlint python3-aiozeroconf-0.1.8-1.fc30.noarch.rpm python3-aiozeroconf.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) asyncio -> syncopation python3-aiozeroconf.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) mDNS -> mans, mdse python3-aiozeroconf.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Fedora Account System Username: fab -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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
[Bug 1713767] Review Request: libnbd - NBD client library in userspace
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1713767 --- Comment #12 from Richard W.M. Jones --- FYI I have added a man page for nbdsh upstream: https://github.com/libguestfs/libnbd/commit/3e436bdc34a3644cfd9466d4c964ed29acedb1d3 This addresses one of the rpmlint issues. However I cannot backport it to 0.1 as it depends on a bunch of other changes. But it's something I can add to Fedora in the 0.2 release. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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
[Bug 1713767] Review Request: libnbd - NBD client library in userspace
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1713767 Björn Persson changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|bj...@xn--rombobjrn-67a.se Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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
[Bug 1708165] Review Request: python-betamax-serializers - A set of third-party serializers for Betamax
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1708165 --- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter --- Thanks for the review Updated files: Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-betamax-serializers.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-betamax-serializers-0.2.0-2.fc29.src.rpm * Sat May 25 2019 Fabian Affolter - 0.2.0-2 - Fix name - Remove dep generator -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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
[Bug 1712280] Review Request: golang-github-hanwen-fuse - FUSE bindings for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1712280 --- Comment #4 from Brian (bex) Exelbierd --- I've uploaded updated files. I've put it back to making a -devel package. I think I have it, however I am concerned by not having a %build section. Another reviewer on a different package seems to be upset if there is not an empty %build section ... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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
[Bug 1713868] Review Request: python-pyvit - A Python Vehicle Interface Toolkit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1713868 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||563471 (FE-SECLAB) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=563471 [Bug 563471] Tracker: Review Requests for Fedora Security Lab related 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
[Bug 1713868] New: Review Request: python-pyvit - A Python Vehicle Interface Toolkit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1713868
Bug ID: 1713868
Summary: Review Request: python-pyvit - A Python Vehicle
Interface Toolkit
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Component: Package Review
Severity: medium
Priority: medium
Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
Reporter: m...@fabian-affolter.ch
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-pyvit.spec
SRPM URL:
https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-pyvit-0.2.1-1.fc29.src.rpm
Project URL: https://github.com/linklayer/pyvit
Description:
pyvit is a toolkit for interfacing with cars from Python. It aims to implement
common hardware interfaces and protocols used in the automotive systems.
Koji scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=35050387
rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint python-pyvit-0.2.1-1.fc29.noarch.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint python-pyvit-0.2.1-1.fc29.src.rpm
python-pyvit.src:40: W: macro-in-comment %check
python-pyvit.src:41: W: macro-in-comment %{__python3}
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Fedora Account System Username: fab
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this 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
[Bug 1712980] Review Request: libslirp - A general purpose TCP-IP emulator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1712980
Marc-Andre Lureau changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(quantum.analyst@g
||mail.com)
--- Comment #4 from Marc-Andre Lureau ---
(In reply to Elliott Sales de Andrade from comment #3)
> - As noted, you should specify an explicit soversion in %files.
changed to
%{_libdir}/%{name}.so.0*
> - For a multi-license package, the breakdown should be specified in a comment
> in the spec.
Like many other projects, libslirp has a main license, BSD-3. But MIT is quite
prominent too. If you look into details, you have to go in the source code. I
added SPDX tags on each files. How would you break things down in the spec?
> - You don't need Requires on pkgconfig or glib-devel as they are
> automatically
> added by the .pc file.
What magic does that? any pointer to doc?
> - Are there any tests that could be run in %check?
Sadly, not at this point.
thanks for the review and your help!
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this 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
[Bug 1713767] Review Request: libnbd - NBD client library in userspace
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1713767 --- Comment #11 from Richard W.M. Jones --- Spec URL: http://oirase.annexia.org/reviews/libnbd/libnbd.spec SRPM URL: http://oirase.annexia.org/reviews/libnbd/libnbd-0.1-2.fc30.src.rpm * Sat May 25 2019 Richard W.M. Jones - 0.1-2 - Filter Python provides. - Remove executable permission on the tar.gz.sig file. The new set of rpmlint warnings is: libnbd.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multithreaded -> multicolored libnbd.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-gnutls-1 /usr/lib64/libnbd.so.0.0.0 gnutls_priority_set_direct python3-libnbd.x86_64: W: no-documentation python3-libnbd.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nbdsh libnbd.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multithreaded -> multicolored 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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
[Bug 1713767] Review Request: libnbd - NBD client library in userspace
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1713767 --- Comment #10 from Richard W.M. Jones --- I realize the message is talking about provides and not requires, and I can see the bogus provides: $ rpm -q --provides -p ../RPMS/x86_64/python3-libnbd-0.1-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm libnbdmod.cpython-37m-x86_64-linux-gnu.so()(64bit) <- python3-libnbd = 0.1-1.fc30 python3-libnbd(x86-64) = 0.1-1.fc30 I will filter this out in the next version. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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
[Bug 1713767] Review Request: libnbd - NBD client library in userspace
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1713767
--- Comment #8 from Richard W.M. Jones ---
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #6)
> It's a Python extension module that is called "lib..." and the RPM provides
> generator picks it up.
> You SHOULD filter it out, see
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
> AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering/
>
> Use something like (untested):
>
> %global __requires_exclude_from ^%{python3_sitearch}/lib.*\\.so
Thanks for identifying this. In the final package as it was built in Koji:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=35036199
I don't seem to see any "rogue" requires:
$ wget
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/6199/35036199/python3-libnbd-0.1-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm
$ rpm -qRp ./python3-libnbd-0.1-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm
/usr/bin/sh
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.14)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit)
libgnutls.so.30()(64bit)
libnbd(x86-64) = 0.1-1.fc31
libnbd.so.0()(64bit)
python(abi) = 3.7
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
rpmlib(PartialHardlinkSets) <= 4.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1
rtld(GNU_HASH)
I can add the exclude anyway. Do you think the same could also apply to these
packages,
as they both have Python modules called lib?
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1260105
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1235402
> > libnbd.src: W: strange-permission libnbd-0.1.tar.gz.sig 775
> >
> > - not sure about this one
>
> I don't understand why a signature file has executable permissions.
> Please, don't. See https://pypi.org/project/nbd/
Heh, who knew :-) OK we'll leave it as libnbd.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this 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
[Bug 1713767] Review Request: libnbd - NBD client library in userspace
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1713767 --- Comment #9 from Richard W.M. Jones --- > I don't understand why a signature file has executable permissions. Just an accident, will fix it in the next version. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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
[Bug 1712980] Review Request: libslirp - A general purpose TCP-IP emulator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1712980
Elliott Sales de Andrade changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||quantum.anal...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|quantum.anal...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #3 from Elliott Sales de Andrade ---
- As noted, you should specify an explicit soversion in %files.
- For a multi-license package, the breakdown should be specified in a comment
in the spec.
- You don't need Requires on pkgconfig or glib-devel as they are automatically
added by the .pc file.
- Are there any tests that could be run in %check?
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]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised"
License", "*No copyright* BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License",
"Expat License". 30 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in 1712980-libslirp/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[?]: 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.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[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
%{na
[Bug 1376783] Review Request: python-can - Controller Area Network (CAN) support for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376783 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@fabian-affolter.ch Blocks||563471 (FE-SECLAB) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=563471 [Bug 563471] Tracker: Review Requests for Fedora Security Lab related 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
[Bug 1713859] Review Request: cantoolz - A framework for Controller Area Network (CAN) bus analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1713859 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||563471 (FE-SECLAB) Alias||cantoolz Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=563471 [Bug 563471] Tracker: Review Requests for Fedora Security Lab related 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
[Bug 1713794] Review Request: python-mido - A Python library for working with MIDI messages and ports
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1713794 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1713859 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1713859 [Bug 1713859] Review Request: cantoolz - A framework for Controller Area Network (CAN) bus analysis -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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
[Bug 1713859] Review Request: cantoolz - A framework for Controller Area Network (CAN) bus analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1713859 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1713794 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1713794 [Bug 1713794] Review Request: python-mido - A Python library for working with MIDI messages and ports -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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
[Bug 1713859] New: Review Request: cantoolz - A framework for Controller Area Network (CAN) bus analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1713859
Bug ID: 1713859
Summary: Review Request: cantoolz - A framework for Controller
Area Network (CAN) bus analysis
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Component: Package Review
Severity: medium
Priority: medium
Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
Reporter: m...@fabian-affolter.ch
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/cantoolz.spec
SRPM URL:
https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/cantoolz-3.7.0-1.fc29.src.rpm
Project URL: https://github.com/CANToolz/CANToolz
Description:
CANToolz is a framework for analyzing CAN networks and devices. It provides
multiple modules that can be chained using CANToolz's pipe system and used by
security researchers, automotive/OEM security testers in black-box analysis.
CANToolz can be used for ECU discovery, MitM testing, fuzzing, brute-forcing,
scanning or R&D, testing and validation.
Koji scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=35049311
rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint cantoolz-3.7.0-1.fc29.noarch.rpm
cantoolz.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cantoolz
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
$ rpmlint cantoolz-3.7.0-1.fc29.src.rpm
cantoolz.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US analysing -> analyzing,
analysis, signaling
cantoolz.src:41: W: macro-in-comment %check
cantoolz.src:42: W: macro-in-comment %{__python3}
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Fedora Account System Username: fab
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this 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
[Bug 1712501] Review Request: python2-more-itertools - Python library for efficient use of itertools utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1712501 --- Comment #8 from Miro Hrončok --- Already done in 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
[Bug 1708165] Review Request: python-betamax-serializers - A set of third-party serializers for Betamax
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1708165
Elliott Sales de Andrade changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||quantum.anal...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|quantum.anal...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Elliott Sales de Andrade ---
You have Requires: on the main package, which is not produced, so they
have no effect. Since you have the dependency generator enabled, you
probably don't even need them.
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: "Unknown or generated", "Apache License (v2.0)". 13 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
1708165-python-betamax-serializers/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[?]: 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.
[!]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package
[Bug 1421851] Review Request: asdcplib - AS-DCP File Access Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1421851 Simone Caronni changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed||2019-05-25 07:48:36 --- Comment #8 from Simone Caronni --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1713852 *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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
[Bug 1713852] Review Request: asdcplib - AS-DCP file access libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1713852 Simone Caronni changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kwiz...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Simone Caronni --- *** Bug 1421851 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
[Bug 1713852] Review Request: asdcplib - AS-DCP file access libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1713852 --- Comment #1 from Simone Caronni --- To test the library, I have a valid DCP cinema license that was given to me by a friend to test DCP support in VLC, I can open some signed DCP packages with a valid timestamp. I can barely get 2 fps on a recent PC :) %ldconfig_scriptlets is in the spec file as I plan to build also for epel-7. $ rpmlint asdcplib.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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
[Bug 1713852] New: Review Request: asdcplib - AS-DCP file access libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1713852 Bug ID: 1713852 Summary: Review Request: asdcplib - AS-DCP file access libraries Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: negativ...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/asdcplib.spec SRPM URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/asdcplib-2.10.32-1.fc30.src.rpm Description: Open source implementation of SMPTE and the MXF Interop “Sound & Picture Track File” format. It was originally developed with support from DCI. Development is currently supported by CineCert and other d-cinema manufacturers. It supports reading and writing MXF files containing sound (PCM), picture (JPEG 2000 or MPEG-2) and timed-text (XML) essence. plain text and cipher text are both supported using OpenSSL for cryptographic support. Fedora Account System Username: slaanesh -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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
[Bug 1713851] Review Request: zimg - Scaling, color space conversion, and dithering library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1713851 --- Comment #1 from Simone Caronni --- Planning to put this package also in epel-7, that's why the %ldconfig_scriptlets in the pacakge. $ rpmlint zimg.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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
[Bug 1713851] New: Review Request: zimg - Scaling, color space conversion, and dithering library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1713851 Bug ID: 1713851 Summary: Review Request: zimg - Scaling, color space conversion, and dithering library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: negativ...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/zimg.spec SRPM URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/zimg-2.8-1.fc30.src.rpm Description: The "z" library implements the commonly required image processing basics of scaling, color space conversion, and depth conversion. A simple API enables conversion between any supported formats to operate with minimal knowledge from the programmer. All library routines were designed from the ground-up with correctness, flexibility, and thread-safety as first priorities. Allocation, buffering, and I/O are cleanly separated from processing, allowing the programmer to adapt "z" to many scenarios. Fedora Account System Username: slaanesh -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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
[Bug 1706659] Review Request: ensmallen - header-only C++ library for efficient mathematical optimization
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1706659
--- Comment #6 from Elliott Sales de Andrade ---
Here is the backtrace if it's helpful? It looks like something is going wrong
in armadillo though.
#0 0x5564ebb4 in arma::Mat::~Mat (this=0x1,
__in_chrg=) at /usr/include/armadillo_bits/Mat_meat.hpp:23
#1 0x5574a594 in arma::auxlib::chol_band_common
(layout=, KD=, X=...)
at /usr/include/bits/string_fortified.h:34
#2 arma::auxlib::chol_band (layout=, KD=, X=...) at /usr/include/armadillo_bits/auxlib_meat.hpp:2008
#3 arma::op_chol::apply_direct > (A_expr=...,
layout=, out=...) at
/usr/include/armadillo_bits/op_chol_meat.hpp:72
#4 arma::op_chol::apply_direct > (layout=,
A_expr=..., out=...) at /usr/include/armadillo_bits/op_chol_meat.hpp:43
#5 arma::chol > (out=..., X=...,
layout=layout@entry=0x5578b6e4 "lower") at
/usr/include/armadillo_bits/fn_chol.hpp:59
#6 0x5573ae70 in ens::Alpha (A=..., dA=..., tau=0.98999,
alpha=@0x7fffb900: 4.9406564584124654e-323)
at
/builddir/build/BUILD/ensmallen-1.14.2/include/ensmallen_bits/sdp/primal_dual_impl.hpp:127
#7 0x55760ae6 in ens::PrimalDualSolver >
>::Optimize (this=this@entry=0x7fffd620, X=..., ysparse=...,
ydense=..., Z=...) at /usr/include/armadillo_bits/Glue_meat.hpp:47
#8 0x5573f9df in C_A_T_C_HT_E_S_T2 () at
/builddir/build/BUILD/ensmallen-1.14.2/tests/sdp_primal_dual_test.cpp:296
#9 0x555ee1f7 in Catch::TestCase::invoke (this=) at
/usr/include/c++/9/bits/shared_ptr_base.h:1020
#10 Catch::RunContext::invokeActiveTestCase (this=0x7fffe0c0) at
/builddir/build/BUILD/ensmallen-1.14.2/tests/catch.hpp:9745
#11 0x55601c7f in Catch::RunContext::runCurrentTest
(this=0x7fffe0c0, redirectedCout="", redirectedCerr="")
at /builddir/build/BUILD/ensmallen-1.14.2/tests/catch.hpp:9719
#12 0x55612280 in Catch::RunContext::runTest (this=0x7fffe0c0,
testCase=...)
at /builddir/build/BUILD/ensmallen-1.14.2/tests/catch.hpp:9495
#13 0x556167de in Catch::(anonymous namespace)::runTests
(config=std::shared_ptr (use count 4, weak count 0) = {...})
at /builddir/build/BUILD/ensmallen-1.14.2/tests/catch.hpp:10035
#14 Catch::Session::runInternal (this=0x7fffe320) at
/builddir/build/BUILD/ensmallen-1.14.2/tests/catch.hpp:10236
#15 0x55616c6f in Catch::Session::run (this=0x7fffe320) at
/builddir/build/BUILD/ensmallen-1.14.2/tests/catch.hpp:10193
#16 0x555e0ddb in Catch::Session::run (argv=0x7fffe598, argc=1,
this=0x7fffe320)
at /builddir/build/BUILD/ensmallen-1.14.2/tests/catch.hpp:10161
#17 Catch::Session::run (argv=0x7fffe598, argc=1, this=0x7fffe320) at
/builddir/build/BUILD/ensmallen-1.14.2/tests/catch.hpp:10156
#18 main (argc=1, argv=0x7fffe598) at
/builddir/build/BUILD/ensmallen-1.14.2/tests/main.cpp:33
What versions of everything do you get? Is one of us outdated somewhere?
Dependencies resolved.
==
Package Architecture
Version Repository Size
==
Installing:
armadillo-devel x86_64
9.400.3-1.fc31fedora 1.4 M
cmakex86_64
3.14.4-1.fc31 fedora 8.9 M
gcc-c++ x86_64
9.1.1-1.fc31 fedora 12 M
Installing dependencies:
SuperLU x86_64
5.2.1-6.fc30 fedora 169 k
SuperLU-develx86_64
5.2.1-6.fc30 fedora 23 k
annobin x86_64
8.76-1.fc31 fedora 180 k
armadillox86_64
9.400.3-1.fc31fedora 26 k
arpack x86_64
3.5.0-6.fc28 fedora 195 k
arpack-devel x86_64
3.5.0-6.fc28 fedora 12 k
atlasx86_64
3.10.3-8.fc30 fedora 6.3 M
atlas-devel
[Bug 1712501] Review Request: python2-more-itertools - Python library for efficient use of itertools utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1712501 Thomas Moschny changed: What|Removed |Added CC||thomas.mosc...@gmx.de --- Comment #7 from Thomas Moschny --- Shouldn't we update it to 5.0.0? Looking at https://github.com/erikrose/more-itertools/releases, that'd be the last release with Python2 support. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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
