[Bug 1714511] Review Request: perl-Sub-Attribute - Reliable subroutine attribute handlers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1714511 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-Sub-Attribute-0.07-1.f ||c31 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2019-05-29 06:19:50 --- Comment #3 from Jitka Plesnikova --- Thank you for the review and the repository. -- 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 1562526] Review Request: libfullock - A Fast User Level LOCK (FULLOCK) library for C and C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1562526 --- Comment #34 from Fedora Update System --- libfullock-1.0.36-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 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
[Bug 1707302] Review Request: resalloc - resource allocator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1707302 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System --- resalloc-2.3-3.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
[Bug 1708165] Review Request: python-betamax-serializers - A set of third-party serializers for Betamax
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1708165 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- python-betamax-serializers-0.2.0-2.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 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-2019-d8da0afb8d -- 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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- libslirp-4.0.0-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 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-2019-1219fa01e8 -- 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 1562526] Review Request: libfullock - A Fast User Level LOCK (FULLOCK) library for C and C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1562526 --- Comment #33 from Fedora Update System --- libfullock-1.0.36-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 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
[Bug 1592905] exercism - Binary in package fails to run
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1592905 Ben Cotton changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |EOL Last Closed|2018-06-19 18:49:51 |2019-05-28 23:40:52 --- Comment #3 from Ben Cotton --- Fedora 28 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2019-05-28. Fedora 28 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this bug. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ 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 1714432] Review Request: golang-github-robfig-cron - Cron library for go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1714432 --- Comment #2 from Mark Goodwin --- Hi Elliot, the v3.0.0-rc1 tag is not released (rc1). As per the README.md: It is currently IN DEVELOPMENT and will be considered released once a 3.0 version is tagged. It is backwards INCOMPATIBLE with both the v1 and v2 branches. So I decided to package the HEAD commit version (and will update to the v3.0.0 version once it is tagged). This is for grafana-6.2.x and later, which needs v3 (v1 and v2 are incompatible). Regards and 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
[Bug 1714377] Review Request: ansible-bender - build container images using ansible playbooks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1714377 --- Comment #6 from Miro Hrončok --- No tests are run: Executing(%check): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.4t5w9E + umask 022 + cd /builddir/build/BUILD + cd ansible-bender-0.6.1 + /usr/bin/python3 setup.py test running test running egg_info writing ansible_bender.egg-info/PKG-INFO writing dependency_links to ansible_bender.egg-info/dependency_links.txt writing entry points to ansible_bender.egg-info/entry_points.txt writing requirements to ansible_bender.egg-info/requires.txt writing top-level names to ansible_bender.egg-info/top_level.txt reading manifest file 'ansible_bender.egg-info/SOURCES.txt' writing manifest file 'ansible_bender.egg-info/SOURCES.txt' running build_ext BUILDSTDERR: -- BUILDSTDERR: Ran 0 tests in 0.000s BUILDSTDERR: OK -- 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 1714377] Review Request: ansible-bender - build container images using ansible playbooks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1714377
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||domi...@greysector.net
--- Comment #5 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski ---
Please conditionalize the BuildRequires: needed for %check so that the package
can be built without them. See
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/sbsigntools/blob/master/f/sbsigntools.spec
for a simple example. In short, put %bcond_without check at the top and wrap
%check-related BRs and the whole %check section with %if %{with check} /
%endif.
Another important point is to bump the Release: field and add a %changelog
entry for each review iteration.
Lastly, please see if you can run the tests in parallel, using something like
(if necessary):
PYTHONPATH=%{buildroot}%{python3_sitelib}:%{buildroot}%{python3_sitearch} \
pytest-%{python3_version} \
-v \
--disable-pytest-warnings \
--numprocesses=auto \
You might need to add python3-pytest-xdist to BRs.
--
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 1714090] Review Request: golist - A tool to analyse the properties of a Go (Golang) codebase
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1714090 Elliott Sales de Andrade changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: golist - A |golang-pagure-golist - A|tool to analyse the |tool to analyse the |properties of a Go (Golang) |properties of a Go (Golang) |codebase |codebase| --- Comment #4 from Elliott Sales de Andrade --- We discussed at the Go SIG meeting and decided to go with golist for the name. Spec URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org/golist.spec SRPM URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org/golist-0.10.0-1.fc30.src.rpm koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=35113864 -- 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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2019-d8da0afb8d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-d8da0afb8d -- 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 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #12 from Richard W.M. Jones --- It's up to you if you want to add BR gcc or not. I noticed that there are some plain C files in the sources and if they are compiled then maybe it's better to state that dependency explicitly. Anyhow ... This package has been APPROVED for Fedora by rjones -- 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 1714377] Review Request: ansible-bender - build container images using ansible playbooks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1714377 --- Comment #4 from Miro Hrončok --- https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ReviewGuidelines/ -- 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 1714377] Review Request: ansible-bender - build container images using ansible playbooks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1714377 --- Comment #3 from Gordon Messmer --- I'd be very happy to review other submissions. Are there guidelines for reviewers? I've added a %check section, and expanded buildrequires to support it. I've also used the python3_pkgversion macro to support a future build in EPEL (which currently lacks a few required modules). Updated spec: https://bitbucket.org/gordonmessmer/ansible-bender/raw/fcc4fe6d1c10da166b07b813d1c08fdf4841ba64/ansible-bender.spec Updated koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=35113086 -- 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 Björn Persson changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(bjorn@xn--rombobj | |rn-67a.se) | --- Comment #11 from Björn Persson --- (In reply to Richard W.M. Jones from comment #10) > - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a > BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. > Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires gcc-gnat pulls in gcc, and wouldn't work without it. Both Ada and C sources are compiled by invoking gcc, the compiler driver, which in turn invokes the actual compiler gnat1 for Ada or cc1 for C. If the GCC packaging would be changed to make cc1 an optional component, in a "gcc-c" package perhaps, then I might need to require that package, but as it currently is, GNAT comes with C support included. I could add "BuildRequires: gcc", but it would be purely a formality. > GPL (with incorrect FSF address) > > gnatcoll-db-gpl-2018-src/sqlite/gnatcoll-sql-sqlite.adb I'm trying to bring this to Adacore's attention here: https://github.com/AdaCore/gnatcoll-db/pull/11 > Almost every other source file lacks a license header of any kind. On the contrary, almost every source file contains a license header, but Licensecheck apparently doesn't recognize them. > [-]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. > > Not really applicable for this Ada package. Actually the entire value of optflags is included in GPRbuild_optflags, and is applied to both Ada and C (although some of the options make no difference for Ada). -- 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 1714620] Review Request: miller - name-indexed data processing tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1714620
Artur Iwicki changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fed...@svgames.pl
--- Comment #2 from Artur Iwicki ---
>mlr.spec
>Name: miller
The filename of the spec should match the name of the package.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_spec_file_naming
>Group: Applications/Text
>Buildroot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-root
>...
>%clean
Not used in Fedora.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_tags_and_sections
>%install
>rm -rf ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}
Don't do this.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_tags_and_sections
>%files
>%{_mandir}/man1/mlr.1.gz
Do not assume that man pages will be compressed using gzip. Use a wildcard
instead.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_manpages
>%defattr(755, root, root, -)
>%defattr(644, root, root, -)
These are discouraged and usually not needed.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_file_permissions
--
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 1714620] Review Request: miller - name-indexed data processing tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1714620 --- Comment #1 from Stephen Kitt --- https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=35106227 is the correct scratch build. The spec file is a little odd because upstream provides tarballs using the mlr name but miller seems like a more appropriate package name. Obviously I can revisit this if necessary. -- 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 #4 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-betamax-serializers -- 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 1714511] Review Request: perl-Sub-Attribute - Reliable subroutine attribute handlers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1714511 --- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Sub-Attribute -- 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 1714620] New: Review Request: miller - name-indexed data processing tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1714620 Bug ID: 1714620 Summary: Review Request: miller - name-indexed data processing tool Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: sk...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://sk2.org/miller/mlr.spec SRPM URL: http://sk2.org/miller/miller-5.4.0-1.fc29.src.rpm Description: Miller (mlr) allows name-indexed data such as CSV and JSON files to be processed with functions equivalent to sed, awk, cut, join, sort etc. It can convert between formats, preserves headers when sorting or reversing, and streams data where possible so its memory requirements stay small. It works well with pipes and can feed "tail -f". Fedora Account System Username: skitt This is https://github.com/johnkerl/miller/ with a few fixes to make it build in Fedora 31. See http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=35105045 for the scratch build. -- 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 #22 from Richard W.M. Jones --- Here's the positive answer about the GnuTLS warning: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/de...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/IGQQHBP56DY5W5G7BKSYDIECNPF3YC73/ -- 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 1714377] Review Request: ansible-bender - build container images using ansible playbooks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1714377 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mhron...@redhat.com --- Comment #2 from Miro Hrončok --- I can sponsor you. Let's finish this review first and later I'll need you to do some reviews for others, if that's OK. = Early feedback: Spec looks simple and sane. - Please, add a %check section with tests: https://github.com/ansible-community/ansible-bender/tree/master/tests - As a matter of style (totally feel free to ignore this): 1) when requires are one package per line, they tend to be better managed in git than putting them all in one line 2) the package already requires this by RPM mechanisms: /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) = 3.7 python3.7dist(jsonschema) python3.7dist(pyyaml) python3.7dist(tabulate) => there is no need to require python3 manually (and while harmless in Fedora, such require could break for example in RHEL 8 if building for other Python 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 1711898] Review Request: zeal - Offline documentation browser inspired by Dash
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1711898
--- Comment #1 from Vasiliy Glazov ---
1. Remove BuildRequires: qt5-qtbase.
2. Change cmake BR to cmake3 and %cmake macro to %cmake3.
3. As project use cmake for build it is better define BR as cmake(). For
example qt5-qtbase-devel provides "cmake(Qt5)" and can be changet to it.
BuildRequires: cmake(Qt5)
Same for all other BRs that provide "cmake()" feature.
4. Remove DESTDIR=%{buildroot} because macro %make_install already contain it.
5. Change
%{_bindir}/zeal
%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/*/apps/zeal.png
to
%{_bindir}/%{name}
%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/*/apps/%{name}.png
This package still not retired. So may be you don't need review request.
Contact main maintainer.
--
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 1711898] Review Request: zeal - Offline documentation browser inspired by Dash
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1711898 Vasiliy Glazov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||vasc...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|vasc...@gmail.com 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 1712980] Review Request: libslirp - A general purpose TCP-IP emulator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1712980 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- libslirp-4.0.0-1.fc30 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-1219fa01e8 -- 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 1074143] Review Request: python-vmbuilder - Ubuntu's vmbuilder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074143 Lumír Balhar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||lbal...@redhat.com Resolution|--- |INSUFFICIENT_DATA Last Closed||2019-05-28 10:40:29 --- Comment #6 from Lumír Balhar --- More than two and a half year without a reply so I am closing this request. If you want to continue, feel free to reopen 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
[Bug 1205872] Review Request: python-padme - Mostly transparent proxy class for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205872 Lumír Balhar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||lbal...@redhat.com Resolution|--- |INSUFFICIENT_DATA Last Closed||2019-05-28 10:37:26 --- Comment #7 from Lumír Balhar --- Hi Zygmunt. Because we are waiting for new links for more than two and a half years, I am closing this review request now. If you want to continue, please update links to spec and srpm and reopen 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 1714511] Review Request: perl-Sub-Attribute - Reliable subroutine attribute handlers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1714511
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Petr Pisar ---
URL and Source addresses are Ok.
Source0 archive (SHA-256:
6f0e3d494d77132b26ef3908a569e9b78797df6c22be82c202b4d171225b8f26) is original.
Ok.
Summary verified from lib/Sub/Attribute.pm. Ok.
Description verified from lib/Sub/Attribute.pm. Ok.
License verified from lib/Sub/Attribute.pm and ppport.h. Ok.
Carp and MRO::Compat are not used. Ok.
TODO: I recommend unsetting SUB_ATTRIBUTE_DEBUG environment variable in the
%check section. Tests do pass with it.
All test pass. Ok.
$ rpmlint perl-Sub-Attribute.spec
../SRPMS/perl-Sub-Attribute-0.07-1.fc31.src.rpm
../RPMS/x86_64/perl-Sub-Attribute-*
/usr/share/rpmlint/Pkg.py:168: UnicodeWarning: decode() called on unicode
string, see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1693751
s.decode('UTF-8')
/usr/share/rpmlint/Pkg.py:168: UnicodeWarning: decode() called on unicode
string, see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1693751
s.decode('UTF-8')
/usr/share/rpmlint/Pkg.py:168: UnicodeWarning: decode() called on unicode
string, see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1693751
s.decode('UTF-8')
/usr/share/rpmlint/Pkg.py:168: UnicodeWarning: decode() called on unicode
string, see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1693751
s.decode('UTF-8')
/usr/share/rpmlint/Pkg.py:168: UnicodeWarning: decode() called on unicode
string, see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1693751
s.decode('UTF-8')
/usr/share/rpmlint/Pkg.py:168: UnicodeWarning: decode() called on unicode
string, see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1693751
s.decode('UTF-8')
4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint is Ok.
$ rpm -qlvp ../RPMS/x86_64/perl-Sub-Attribute-0.07-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 May 28 12:26
/usr/lib/.build-id
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 May 28 12:26
/usr/lib/.build-id/94
lrwxrwxrwx1 rootroot 71 May 28 12:26
/usr/lib/.build-id/94/b1d775424f9fae35399da28b388cc62a4277f6 ->
../../../../usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/Sub/Attribute/Attribute.so
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 May 28 12:26
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/Sub
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 2148 Nov 1 2018
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/Sub/Attribute.pm
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 May 28 12:26
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/Sub
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 May 28 12:26
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/Sub/Attribute
-rwxr-xr-x1 rootroot25896 May 28 12:26
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/Sub/Attribute/Attribute.so
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 May 28 12:26
/usr/share/doc/perl-Sub-Attribute
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1170 Nov 1 2018
/usr/share/doc/perl-Sub-Attribute/CHANGELOG
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 520 Jul 2 2017
/usr/share/doc/perl-Sub-Attribute/README
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 May 28 12:26
/usr/share/doc/perl-Sub-Attribute/example
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 312 May 28 12:26
/usr/share/doc/perl-Sub-Attribute/example/example_abstract.pl
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 366 May 28 12:26
/usr/share/doc/perl-Sub-Attribute/example/example_exporter.pl
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 May 28 12:26
/usr/share/doc/perl-Sub-Attribute/example/lib
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Nov 1 2018
/usr/share/doc/perl-Sub-Attribute/example/lib/Attribute
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 510 Jul 2 2017
/usr/share/doc/perl-Sub-Attribute/example/lib/Attribute/Abstract.pm
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1197 Jul 2 2017
/usr/share/doc/perl-Sub-Attribute/example/lib/Attribute/Exporter.pm
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 423 May 28 12:26
/usr/share/doc/perl-Sub-Attribute/example/loud.pl
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 773 May 28 12:26
/usr/share/doc/perl-Sub-Attribute/example/namespace.pl
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 2101 May 28 12:26
/usr/share/man/man3/Sub::Attribute.3pm.gz
File layout and permissions are Ok.
$ rpm -q --requires -p ../RPMS/x86_64/perl-Sub-Attribute-0.07-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm
| sort -f | uniq -c
1 libc.so.6()(64bit)
1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit)
1 libperl.so.5.28()(64bit)
1 libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.28.2)
1 perl(:VERSION) >= 5.8.0
1 perl(attributes)
1 perl(Exporter)
1 perl(parent)
1 perl(strict)
1 perl(XSLoader)
1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames)
[Bug 1714511] Review Request: perl-Sub-Attribute - Reliable subroutine attribute handlers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1714511 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||ppi...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ppi...@redhat.com 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 1714511] Review Request: perl-Sub-Attribute - Reliable subroutine attribute handlers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1714511 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1712800 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1712800 [Bug 1712800] Upgrade perl-Promises to 1.00 -- 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 1714511] New: Review Request: perl-Sub-Attribute - Reliable subroutine attribute handlers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1714511 Bug ID: 1714511 Summary: Review Request: perl-Sub-Attribute - Reliable subroutine attribute handlers Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jples...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://jplesnik.fedorapeople.org/perl-Sub-Attribute/perl-Sub-Attribute.spec SRPM URL: https://jplesnik.fedorapeople.org/perl-Sub-Attribute/perl-Sub-Attribute-0.07-1.fc31.src.rpm Description: Sub::Attribute is a role to define attribute handlers for specific subroutine attributes. Fedora Account System Username: jples...@redhat.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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|ASSIGNED|POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Elliott Sales de Andrade --- LGTM. -- 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 1714432] Review Request: golang-github-robfig-cron - Cron library for go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1714432 Elliott Sales de Andrade changed: What|Removed |Added CC||quantum.anal...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Elliott Sales de Andrade --- There are some tags; is there any reason not to be packaging one of those? -- 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 1714350] Review Request: repmgr - Replication Manager for PostgreSQL Clusters
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1714350
--- Comment #1 from Honza Horak ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- systemd_post is invoked in %post, but no systemd_preun in %preun, and
systemd_postun in %postun is invoked for Systemd service files.
Note: Systemd service file(s) in repmgr
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/Scriptlets/#_scriptlets
- There is one patch with no comment why it is used. Also, the patch used
in the patch (/etc/repmgr/10/repmgr.conf) is probably not the best,
as config files in Fedora are usually packaged without the version,
and the rest of the package is also not installed in more than one version,
so I'd suggest to change the default config file to /etc/repmgr/repmgr.conf,
in the best case it could be set by build-time-configured variable.
- Creating the var log in %pre/%post sections looks like not really
the best thing to do. I'd suggest to do something like this:
%attr(0700,postgres,postgres) %dir %{logfiledir}
- Invalid buildroot found:
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}%{extra_version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u}
-n)
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[!]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
- this is ok, as the unversioned file is a plugin
[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]: 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.
[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.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: 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.
[x]: 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 40960 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: 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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]: No %config files under /usr.
[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]:
[Bug 1714400] Review Request: flashrom - update to 1.1-rc1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1714400 Peter Lemenkov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||lemen...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Peter Lemenkov --- Looks ok to me. -- 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 #21 from Richard W.M. Jones --- Spec URL: http://oirase.annexia.org/reviews/libnbd/libnbd.spec SRPM URL: http://oirase.annexia.org/reviews/libnbd/libnbd-0.1.1-1.fc30.src.rpm - Fix license in man pages and examples. - Add nbdsh(1) man page. Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=35103991 -- 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 #20 from Richard W.M. Jones --- (In reply to Björn Persson from comment #19) > Issues to be resolved > = > > · The man pages are BSD-licensed, so BSD must be mentioned in the license > tag of libnbd-devel. At least in this case the LGPL does not apply to the > BSD-licensed files. Damn, this is a mistake. The man pages are supposed to contain the LGPLv2+ blurb. I have fixed this upstream now: https://github.com/libguestfs/libnbd/commit/8b6e4ccda1a51cd840bb47a3f12e0b4000788130 > · I'm awaiting your decision on a license for the examples. Do you want to > use CC0 or 0BSD? (I don't see 0BSD in the list of good licenses by the way.) > As I understand it you can call it Public Domain only if the files > explicitly say "public domain": > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ > LicensingGuidelines/#_public_domain I had an email back from Richard Fontana saying that CC0 is no longer recommended (it doesn't contain a patent grant). https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/le...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/JR53JW52OKOL2S6O27NMNMO5SIM356X6/ As I'm familiar with the simple BSD license that we used for nbdkit, I will use that for the examples: https://github.com/libguestfs/libnbd/commit/e498c3b16f6acb70f5768fe6d508aa986fb3ba63 > · I still need to study how GnuTLS works to understand the situation with > the crypto policy. I hope you'll get an answer on the devel list. I'm pretty certain what we're doing is correct, as this is how libvirt has worked and they changed to this after discussions with the GnuTLS maintainer. As there are a number of upstream changes required, I'm going to do a 0.1.1 release upstream and post another 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
