[Bug 1798811] Review Request: waybar - Highly customizable Wayland bar for Sway and Wlroots based compositors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1798811 Aleksei Bavshin changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1798811] New: Review Request: waybar - Highly customizable Wayland bar for Sway and Wlroots based compositors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1798811 Bug ID: 1798811 Summary: Review Request: waybar - Highly customizable Wayland bar for Sway and Wlroots based compositors Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: alebast...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/alebastr/waybar/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01212492-waybar/waybar.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/alebastr/waybar/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01212492-waybar/waybar-0.9.0-3.fc32.src.rpm COPR URL: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/alebastr/waybar/ Description: Waybar is a highly customizable Wayland bar for Sway and Wlroots based compositors. Fedora Account System Username: alebastr I've been contributing to upstream project and maintaining copr repo with waybar for about a year and increasing amount of complains about lack of the package in official Fedora repository has brought me here. Since this is my first Fedora package I'm seeking a sponsor. Notes to reviewers: - Changelog and Release from copr will be reset on import - Upstream has no better description for the project and most of the other distribution packagers didn't write one. - There's an upcoming upstream release, but it will introduce dependency on https://github.com/HowardHinnant/date/ which is a pain to package. I'd prefer to have one pending review at a time. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1795470] Review Request: antlr4-project - Parser generator (ANother Tool for Language Recognition)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795470 --- Comment #9 from Jerry James --- Oops. Try these URLs instead: Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/antlr4-project/antlr4-project.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/antlr4-project/antlr4-project-4.8-1.fc32.src.rpm RPMLINTRC URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/antlr4-project/antlr4-project.rpmlintrc And since all of the prerequisites are now in Rawhide, we can do a scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=41401310 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1798796] Review Request: ocaml-ppxfind - Tool to apply OCaml ppx rewriters to a file
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1798796 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1798798 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1798798 [Bug 1798798] Review Request: ocaml-ppx-deriving - Type-driven code generation for OCaml -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1798797] Review Request: ocaml-ppx-tools - Tools for authors of ppx rewriters
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1798797 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1798798 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1798798 [Bug 1798798] Review Request: ocaml-ppx-deriving - Type-driven code generation for OCaml -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1798798] Review Request: ocaml-ppx-deriving - Type-driven code generation for OCaml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1798798 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dan.cermak@cgc-instruments. ||com Depends On||1798796, 1798797 Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1798796 [Bug 1798796] Review Request: ocaml-ppxfind - Tool to apply OCaml ppx rewriters to a file https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1798797 [Bug 1798797] Review Request: ocaml-ppx-tools - Tools for authors of ppx rewriters -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1798797] Review Request: ocaml-ppx-tools - Tools for authors of ppx rewriters
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1798797 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dan.cermak@cgc-instruments. ||com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1798796] Review Request: ocaml-ppxfind - Tool to apply OCaml ppx rewriters to a file
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1798796 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dan.cermak@cgc-instruments. ||com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1798798] New: Review Request: ocaml-ppx-deriving - Type-driven code generation for OCaml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1798798 Bug ID: 1798798 Summary: Review Request: ocaml-ppx-deriving - Type-driven code generation for OCaml Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: loganje...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/ocaml-ppx-deriving/ocaml-ppx-deriving.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/ocaml-ppx-deriving/ocaml-ppx-deriving-4.4-1.fc32.src.rpm RPMLINTRC URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/ocaml-ppx-deriving/ocaml-ppx-deriving.rpmlintrc Fedora Account System Username: jjames Description: Deriving is a library simplifying type-driven code generation on OCaml. It includes a set of useful plugins: show, eq, ord (eq), enum, iter, map (iter), fold (iter), make, yojson, and protobuf. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1798797] New: Review Request: ocaml-ppx-tools - Tools for authors of ppx rewriters
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1798797 Bug ID: 1798797 Summary: Review Request: ocaml-ppx-tools - Tools for authors of ppx rewriters Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: loganje...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/ocaml-ppx-tools/ocaml-ppx-tools.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/ocaml-ppx-tools/ocaml-ppx-tools-5.3-1.fc32.src.rpm RPMLINTRC URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/ocaml-ppx-tools/ocaml-ppx-tools.rpmlintrc Fedora Account System Username: jjames Description: Tools for authors of syntactic tools (such as ppx rewriters). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1798796] New: Review Request: ocaml-ppxfind - Tool to apply OCaml ppx rewriters to a file
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1798796 Bug ID: 1798796 Summary: Review Request: ocaml-ppxfind - Tool to apply OCaml ppx rewriters to a file Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: loganje...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/ocaml-ppxfind/ocaml-ppxfind.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/ocaml-ppxfind/ocaml-ppxfind-1.3-1.fc32.src.rpm RPMLINTRC URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/ocaml-ppxfind/ocaml-ppxfind.rpmlintrc Fedora Account System Username: jjames Description: Ppxfind is a small command line tool that enables the application of ppx rewriters to a file. It supports both new style ppx rewriters (driverized) and old styles rewriters. At the moment new style ppx rewriters are executed in byte-code mode as Ppxfind relies on dynamic loading and the packaging of a lot of ppx rewriters is incomplete, i.e. the cmxs files are missing. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1723575] Review Request: python-insights-core - data collection and processing framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1723575 --- Comment #10 from Elliott Sales de Andrade --- There's not much you can do about the first one, except wait for a new nbshinx package. I think for the latter, it's also about nbshinx, so you might have to wait for an update there too. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1798786] Review Request: golang-github-creack-pty - PTY interface for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1798786 --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=41400491 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1798786] New: Review Request: golang-github-creack-pty - PTY interface for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1798786 Bug ID: 1798786 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-creack-pty - PTY interface for Go Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: zebo...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/golang-github-creack-pty.spec SRPM URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/golang-github-creack-pty-1.1.9-1.fc32.src.rpm Description: Pty is a Go package for using unix pseudo-terminals. Fedora Account System Username: eclipseo -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1786833] Review Request: ghc-microlens-platform - Feature-complete microlens
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1786833 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- ghc-microlens-platform-0.3.11-1.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 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-2020-462998096f -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1786834] Review Request: ghc-brick - A declarative terminal user interface library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1786834 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- ghc-brick-0.50.1-1.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 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-2020-0823b43bdb -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1797218] Review Request: monit - Manages and monitors processes, files, directories and devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1797218 --- Comment #3 from Stewart Adam --- Sorry, he/she*. Did not mean to assume :) -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1797218] Review Request: monit - Manages and monitors processes, files, directories and devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1797218 --- Comment #2 from Stewart Adam --- Hi @livio, I tried adding you to the package commit ACL but it couldn't find your FAS username - I'm guessing it filters by members of the packagers group. @Antonio can we sponsor @livio and I'll be his point of contact for any questions as he ramps up? -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1762856] Review Request: mingw-rust - MinGW Windows Rust Toolchain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1762856 --- Comment #15 from Sandro Mani --- Cool, 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1790108] Review Request: python-rtmidi - Python binding for the RtMidi C++ library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1790108 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- python-rtmidi-1.3.1-1.el8 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1790069] Review Request: python-gmqtt - Client for the MQTT protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1790069 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- python-gmqtt-0.5.4-1.el8 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1792224] Review Request: libmongocrypt - The companion C library for client side encryption in drivers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1792224 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System --- libmongocrypt-1.0.1-2.el8 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1762856] Review Request: mingw-rust - MinGW Windows Rust Toolchain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1762856 --- Comment #14 from Josh Stone --- I think I'll just send such a PR to cargo and see what they say... :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1762856] Review Request: mingw-rust - MinGW Windows Rust Toolchain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1762856 --- Comment #13 from Sandro Mani --- Would it be excessively dangerous to do some hacky patchy and filter out the host from rustc -Vv? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1762856] Review Request: mingw-rust - MinGW Windows Rust Toolchain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1762856 --- Comment #12 from Josh Stone --- > I suspect it's just the host triple getting mixed in there. The hash comes from cargo, which adds two arguments to the build: "rustc ... -C metadata=HASH -C extra-filename=HASH ..." Cargo's compute_metadata includes rustc.verbose_version (the output of "rustc -Vv"), which does include the host: (rust-1.41.0-1.fc31.x86_64) $ rustc -Vv rustc 1.41.0 binary: rustc commit-hash: unknown commit-date: unknown host: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu release: 1.41.0 LLVM version: 9.0 (upstream stable) $ rustc -Vv rustc 1.41.0 (5e1a79984 2020-01-27) binary: rustc commit-hash: 5e1a799842ba6ed4a57e91f7ab9435947482f7d8 commit-date: 2020-01-27 host: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu release: 1.41.0 LLVM version: 9.0 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1762856] Review Request: mingw-rust - MinGW Windows Rust Toolchain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1762856 --- Comment #11 from Josh Stone --- Yeah, we'll have to either make those arch-specific, or figure out and fix the hash difference. I suspect it's just the host triple getting mixed in there. IIRC the last time I tried this, libraries built on one host type were still usable from another host type (both different than the actual target). Most of the upstream host binaries are also cross-compiled from x86_64, which supports that the original host shouldn't really matter. Will rpmdiff also complain about noarch if we achieve the same filenames, but not completely identical binary contents? I'm not sure the build is 100% reproducible yet. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1762856] Review Request: mingw-rust - MinGW Windows Rust Toolchain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1762856 --- Comment #10 from Sandro Mani --- On my part I'm open to whichever approach allows me to finally update mingw-librsvg ;) But I suspect that I'd be hitting the same issue I'm currently hitting with this approach, namely that the package builds fine on all arches [1], but ultimately fails with BuildError: The following noarch package built differently on different architectures: mingw32-rust-debuginfo-1.41.0-1.fc32.noarch.rpm rpmdiff output was: added /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/lib/rustlib/i686-pc-windows-gnu/lib/std-639345594c286378.dll.debug removed /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/lib/rustlib/i686-pc-windows-gnu/lib/std-cf288f9e2d3c8cc5.dll.debug removed /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/lib/rustlib/i686-pc-windows-gnu/lib/test-8bf4c31ff797f1ad.dll.debug added /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/lib/rustlib/i686-pc-windows-gnu/lib/test-c56b86867130dddf.dll.debug Basically it looks like the hashes in the filenames are not stable. I've so far not found any pointers out there on how to control these. @Josh, any ideas perhaps? FWIW, here is the latest attempt: Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-rust.spec SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-rust-1.41.0-1.fc32.src.rpm [1] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=41395327 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1795283] Package review request - python-odml: File-format to store metadata in an organised way
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795283 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) --- That all looks good now. APPROVED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1795470] Review Request: antlr4-project - Parser generator (ANother Tool for Language Recognition)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795470 Bug 1795470 depends on bug 1795467, which changed state. Bug 1795467 Summary: Review Request: treelayout - Efficient and customizable tree layout algorithm in Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795467 What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1795467] Review Request: treelayout - Efficient and customizable tree layout algorithm in Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795467 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2020-02-05 18:41:15 --- Comment #3 from Jerry James --- Built 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1796711] Review Request: python-readthedocs-sphinx-ext - Sphinx extension for Read the Docs overrides
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1796711 --- Comment #9 from Jerry James --- (In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #5) > Here I come, summoned by my name being spoken. Kibo is back! Thanks for the explanations, Miro and Petr. I feel enlightened. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1798283] Review Request: pcsx2 - Playstation 2 Emulator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1798283 --- Comment #3 from Artem --- @Tom, thank you a lot for suck quick respond. I guess i can try luck to push this in RPM Fusion? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1798283] Review Request: pcsx2 - Playstation 2 Emulator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1798283 Tom "spot" Callaway changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||tcall...@redhat.com Resolution|--- |CANTFIX Last Closed||2020-02-05 16:41:31 --- Comment #2 from Tom "spot" Callaway --- Fedora has a strict set of rules around emulators (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Emulators). PCSX2 fails this one: Emulators which depend on firmware or ROM files to function may not be included in Fedora, unless the copyright holder(s) for the firmware/ROM files give clear permission for the firmware/ROM files to be distributed (either under a Fedora permissible license or under the Fedora firmware exception criteria). Note: This only covers the situation where an emulator will not run at all without firmware/ROM files. For example, emulators that compile and run, but ship with no game ROMs are not covered by this rule. PCSX2 does not function without a copy of a PS2 BIOS. While this BIOS is not included in PCSX2 for legal reasons, the fact that PCSX2 depends on it is a problem. PCSX2 cannot do anything without this BIOS file. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1795461] Review Request: practrand - Software package for the Randon number generation & testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795461 --- Comment #4 from Jiri Hladky --- Thanks a lot for the review! I have fixed the issues pointed out in comment #1 and comment #3. I had to do some modifications for s390x as well. Modified SPEC and SRPM files are here: Spec URL: https://jhladky.fedorapeople.org/practrand.spec SRPM URL: https://jhladky.fedorapeople.org/practrand-0.95-1.fc29.src.rpm And there is the link to the successful Koji scratch build: koji build --scratch rawhide practrand-0.95-1.fc29.src.rpm https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=41385054 > Can you please correct the sourceurl also as Artur pointed out? Fedora-review > gives a warning already. This is the last unresolved issue. I got a preliminary version but it's not released yet. There are few minors issues which the author would like to fix before releasing it. Let's put this review on hold until 0.95 release is out. I will then let you know and we will finish the process. Thanks a lot! Jirka -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1798603] New: Review Request: ccls - Full featured C/C++/ObjC language server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1798603 Bug ID: 1798603 Summary: Review Request: ccls - Full featured C/C++/ObjC language server Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ckell...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/gicmo/spec/17c576b498787d5476ac44c294a8eb74a30a1b05/ccls/ccls.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gicmo/nursery/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/0105-ccls/ccls-0.20190823.5-1.fc32.src.rpm Description: ccls is a language server for C/C++/Objective-C. It supports many of the language server protocol features, including but not limited to code completion, finding definition/references and other cross references. Source code formatting, context aware symbol renaming, diagnostics and code actions (clang FixIts) and semantic highlighting and navigation. Fedora Account System Username: gicmo copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/gicmo/nursery/build/105/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1787619] Review Request: tucnak - VHF contest logging program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1787619
--- Comment #11 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Should be libzia-devel not libzia:
BuildRequires: libzia-devel = %{version}
- Make these files UTF-8:
tucnak.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/tucnak/AUTHORS
tucnak.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/tucnak/ChangeLog
- Notify upstream about their obsolete FSF address:
tucnak.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/tucnak/COPYING
- There is obsolete m4 macros used:
[!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment.
See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools
AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found
--
AM_CONFIG_HEADER found in: tucnak-4.20/configure.ac:2
Patch it with AC_CONFIG_HEADERS and send it upstreamtoo.
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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "FSF All Permissive License", "Expat
License", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2)", "*No copyright* GPL (v2)",
"zlib/libpng license", "Apache License (v2.0)". 152 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/tucnak/review-tucnak/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 368640 bytes in 22 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source packa
[Bug 1795399] Review Request: wofi - A window switcher, application launcher and dmenu replacement for wayland
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795399 Christian Kellner changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||wofi-1.0-1.fc32 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-02-05 15:22:18 --- Comment #5 from Christian Kellner --- Built in rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=41391474 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1796370] Review Request: pipewire0.2 - PipeWire 0.2 compatibility libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1796370 --- Comment #5 from Kalev Lember --- Sounds good to me, 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1796370] Review Request: pipewire0.2 - PipeWire 0.2 compatibility libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1796370
Wim Taymans changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wtaym...@redhat.com
--- Comment #4 from Wim Taymans ---
(In reply to Kalev Lember from comment #3)
> Wim: This looks good to me, with just one question: is the stuff under
> %{_libdir}/spa/ supposed to be parallel installable? I suspect it's going to
> conflict with 0.3; maybe it would be best to just drop the spa plugins from
> the compat package?
The old plugins are not compatible with the new ones so they need to be
parallel
installable. I changed the 0.3 version to install the plugins in
%{_libdir}/spa-%{spaversion}/
so that won't be a problem
>
> Also, if we need spa plugins in pipewire-libs package (and I think we do, I
> remember asking you a while back if the client-side libraries use spa and
> you said yes), would it make sense to make them live in a versioned
> subdirectory in the new 0.3 version? Maybe I'm just confused how it's all
> supposed to work :)
I'm going to put everything in a versioned directory now just to make sure we
can parallel install if we want.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1798513] New: Review Request: nanovna-saver - A tool for reading, displaying and saving data from the NanoVNA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1798513 Bug ID: 1798513 Summary: Review Request: nanovna-saver - A tool for reading, displaying and saving data from the NanoVNA Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jskar...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/nanovna-saver/nanovna-saver.spec SRPM URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/nanovna-saver/nanovna-saver-0.2.2-1.fc32.src.rpm Description: A multiplatform tool to save Touchstone files from the NanoVNA, sweep frequency spans in segments to gain more than 101 data points, and generally display and analyze the resulting data. Fedora Account System Username: jskarvad -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1796145] Review Request: commoncpp2 - GNU Common C++ class framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1796145 Sandro Mani changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-02-05 14:30:00 -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1796370] Review Request: pipewire0.2 - PipeWire 0.2 compatibility libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1796370
--- Comment #3 from Kalev Lember ---
Fabio: Thanks!
Wim: This looks good to me, with just one question: is the stuff under
%{_libdir}/spa/ supposed to be parallel installable? I suspect it's going to
conflict with 0.3; maybe it would be best to just drop the spa plugins from the
compat package?
Also, if we need spa plugins in pipewire-libs package (and I think we do, I
remember asking you a while back if the client-side libraries use spa and you
said yes), would it make sense to make them live in a versioned subdirectory in
the new 0.3 version? Maybe I'm just confused how it's all supposed to work :)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1798283] Review Request: pcsx2 - Playstation 2 Emulator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1798283 Artem changed: What|Removed |Added Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value --- Comment #1 from Artem --- Note: because this is i686 only app you should run for fedora-review: fedora-review -m fedora-31-i386 -b 1798283 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1795018] Review Request: brightnessctl - Read and control device brightness
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795018 Christian Kellner changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||0.4-2.fc32 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-02-05 14:06:33 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1795399] Review Request: wofi - A window switcher, application launcher and dmenu replacement for wayland
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795399 --- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/wofi -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1795249] Review Request: sdbus-cpp - High-level C++ D-Bus library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795249 --- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/sdbus-cpp -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1787619] Review Request: tucnak - VHF contest logging program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1787619 --- Comment #10 from Jaroslav Škarvada --- Spec URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/tucnak/tucnak.spec SRPM URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/tucnak/tucnak-4.20-1.fc32.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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1796711] Review Request: python-readthedocs-sphinx-ext - Sphinx extension for Read the Docs overrides
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1796711 --- Comment #8 from Miro Hrončok --- Ha! We should fallback to setuptools.build_meta:__legacy__, not just setuptools.build_meta. https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pyproject-rpm-macros/pull-request/29 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1796711] Review Request: python-readthedocs-sphinx-ext - Sphinx extension for Read the Docs overrides
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1796711 Petr Viktorin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pvikt...@redhat.com --- Comment #7 from Petr Viktorin --- > The pyproject.toml file specifies a build backend. For easier adoption, we > select "setuptools.build_meta" build backend when the pyproject.toml file is > not present or it is oresent but the backend is not specified. Note that this is standard behavior, not something Fedora-specific. See https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0517/: > If the pyproject.toml file is absent, or the build-backend key is missing, > the source tree is not using this specification, and tools should revert to > the legacy behaviour of running setup.py (either directly, or by implicitly > invoking the setuptools.build_meta:__legacy__ backend). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1796711] Review Request: python-readthedocs-sphinx-ext - Sphinx extension for Read the Docs overrides
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1796711 --- Comment #6 from Miro Hrončok --- I've also opened https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-readthedocs-sphinx-ext/pull-request/1 For https://github.com/readthedocs/readthedocs-sphinx-ext/issues/64 this is a bit messy, but once that is fixed upstream, it will be better. The idea was that when you use %pyproject_buildrequires -t, you already have tox, but OTOH from reading the specfile, you don't know you have pytest. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1796711] Review Request: python-readthedocs-sphinx-ext - Sphinx extension for Read the Docs overrides
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1796711 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mhron...@redhat.com --- Comment #5 from Miro Hrončok --- (In reply to Jerry James from comment #2) > Thanks for the review! > > (In reply to Sandro Mani from comment #1) > > (Curiosity: [1] states that the pyproject macros work if the project > > includes pyproject.toml, but the sources contain no such file. So how is > > this actually working?) > > I'm afraid I don't know the answer to that question myself, although I'm > sure Miro does. It looks like the commands invoked by the pyproject macros > must parse setup.py, since they find the requests and Jinja2 dependencies. > Either that or they invoke black magic. Possibly both. Here I come, summoned by my name being spoken. The pyproject.toml file specifies a build backend. For easier adoption, we select "setuptools.build_meta" build backend when the pyproject.toml file is not present or it is oresent but the backend is not specified. The "setuptools.build_meta" build backend is backwards compatible with setup.py files. For curiosity, see get_backend() in https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pyproject-rpm-macros/blob/master/f/pyproject_buildrequires.py#_125 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1796145] Review Request: commoncpp2 - GNU Common C++ class framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1796145 --- Comment #7 from Sandro Mani --- Ups, yes will do! Many thanks for the thorough 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1794229] Review Request: rubygem-rspec-fire - More resilient test doubles for RSpec.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1794229
Alejandro Alvarez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #4 from Alejandro Alvarez ---
Hello again,
Here is the review. There are three issues:
* You must require rubygems on your doc package, specially because it is the
owner of /usr/share/gems/ and /usr/share/gems/doc.
I have checked other rubygem doc packages and they do depend on rubygems, so
better add it.
* You can get rid of your Requires. See
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Ruby/#_rubygems
This is optional
* There are no tests, but AFAIK upstream has none, so little to do here.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- gems should require rubygems package
Note: Requires: rubygems missing in rubygem-rspec-fire-doc
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/Ruby/#RubyGems
- Package contains Requires: ruby(release).
= 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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
licenses manually.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gems,
/usr/share/gems/doc
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Ruby:
[x]: Platform dependent files must all go under %{gem_extdir_mri}, platform
independent under %{gem_dir}.
[x]: Gem package must not define a non-gem subpackage
[x]: Macro %{gem_extdir} is deprecated.
[x]: Gem package is named rubygem-%{gem_name}
[x]: Package contains BuildRequires: rubygems-devel.
[x]: Gem package must define %{gem_name} macro.
[x]: Pure Ruby package must be built as noarch
[x]: Package does not contain Requires: ruby(abi).
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[ ]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
Note: Package con
[Bug 1798393] Review Request: ghc-lens-family-core - Haskell 98 Lens Families
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1798393 --- Comment #1 from Jens Petersen --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=41387164 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1798393] New: Review Request: ghc-lens-family-core - Haskell 98 Lens Families
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1798393 Bug ID: 1798393 Summary: Review Request: ghc-lens-family-core - Haskell 98 Lens Families Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: peter...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews//ghc-lens-family-core.spec SRPM URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews//ghc-lens-family-core-1.2.3-1.fc31.src.rpm Description: This package provides first class(†) functional references. In addition to the usual operations of getting, setting and composition, plus integration with the state monad, lens families provide some unique features: * Polymorphic updating * Traversals * Cast projection functions to read-only lenses * Cast "toList" functions to read-only traversals * Cast semantic editor combinators to modify-only traversals. (†) For optimal first-class support use the 'lens-family' package with rank 2 / rank N polymorphism. "Lens.Family.Clone" allows for first-class support of lenses and traversals for those who require Haskell 98. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
