[Bug 1825681] Review Request: create-fake-rpm - Generate fake (S)RPM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1825681 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2020-ef8ddb60a9 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-ef8ddb60a9 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1825183] Review Request: hanamin-fonts - Japanese Mincho-typeface TrueType font
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1825183 --- Comment #5 from Parag Nemade --- Thank you, I understood this font family packaging now. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1825681] Review Request: create-fake-rpm - Generate fake (S)RPM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1825681 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-d8c9d1d028 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-d8c9d1d028 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-d8c9d1d028 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1827887] Review Request: mingw-biblesync - A Cross-platform library for sharing Bible navigation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827887 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-3c66ece950 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-3c66ece950 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-3c66ece950 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1827948] Review Request: python-spyking-circus - Fast and scalable spike sorting of large-scale extracellular recordings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827948 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-14db45aad6 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-14db45aad6 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-14db45aad6 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1820478] Review Request: php-sebastian-code-unit - Collection of value objects that represent the PHP code units
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1820478 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-3e6c4cf61e has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-3e6c4cf61e` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-3e6c4cf61e See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1826950] Review Request: python-jsonfield - is a reusable model field that allows you to store validated JSON, automatically handling serialization to and from the database.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826950 --- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-120aea1636 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-120aea1636` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-120aea1636 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1827901] Review Request: zswap-cli - Command-line tool to control zswap options
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827901 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-75d218e536 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-75d218e536 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-75d218e536 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1827887] Review Request: mingw-biblesync - A Cross-platform library for sharing Bible navigation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827887 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-d752e3b411 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-d752e3b411 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-d752e3b411 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1825681] Review Request: create-fake-rpm - Generate fake (S)RPM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1825681 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-94b86b8f5b has been pushed to the Fedora 30 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-94b86b8f5b \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-94b86b8f5b See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1827887] Review Request: mingw-biblesync - A Cross-platform library for sharing Bible navigation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827887 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-d80df47a6f has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-d80df47a6f \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-d80df47a6f See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1820478] Review Request: php-sebastian-code-unit - Collection of value objects that represent the PHP code units
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1820478 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-d716db29e2 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-d716db29e2` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-d716db29e2 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1826950] Review Request: python-jsonfield - is a reusable model field that allows you to store validated JSON, automatically handling serialization to and from the database.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826950 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-28f36b7cca has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-28f36b7cca` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-28f36b7cca See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1825681] Review Request: create-fake-rpm - Generate fake (S)RPM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1825681 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-9d5dfb64d6 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-9d5dfb64d6 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-9d5dfb64d6 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1827948] Review Request: python-spyking-circus - Fast and scalable spike sorting of large-scale extracellular recordings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827948 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-f7314234a8 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-f7314234a8 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-f7314234a8 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1827901] Review Request: zswap-cli - Command-line tool to control zswap options
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827901 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-04-28 02:32:31 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-5e3032c74d has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, 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 1826034] Review Request: cubeb - A cross platform audio library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826034
Michel Alexandre Salim changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #9 from Michel Alexandre Salim ---
Looks great. There's a typo in the new changelog entry though:
Add breakdown for a few files not licensed BSD
Since most of the files are ISC and MIT licensed, I think you meant
Add breakdown for a few BSD-licensed files
(without the *not*)
APPROVED
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "ISC License", "Expat License", "BSD
3-clause "New" or "Revised" License". 71 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/1826034-cubeb/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[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 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream
[Bug 1826998] Review Request: python-language-server - Python Language Server for the Language Server Protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826998 --- Comment #8 from Mukundan Ragavan --- Now that jsonrpc-server is done, I believe we can move forward with this. If I enable the tests, the package building process, appears to get stuck. Please see these scratch builds. rawhide - https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=43866180 f32 - https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=43874417 If I disable the tests, the package builds, of course, but I would like to understand why the tests are failing. Build without tests enabled - https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=43874363 Updated SPEC URL: https://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/python-packages/2019-2020/pyls/rnd1/python-language-server.spec Updated SRPM URL: https://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/python-packages/2019-2020/pyls/rnd1/python-language-server-0.31.10-2.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 1775443] Review Request: wlr-randr - An xrandr clone for wlroots compositors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1775443 Aleksei Bavshin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||alebast...@gmail.com --- Comment #15 from Aleksei Bavshin --- > BuildRequires: pkgconfig(wlroots) Is this BR necessary? Nothing in the application code uses or links to wlroots. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1827427] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-argos - Create GNOME Shell extensions in seconds
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827427 --- Comment #8 from Michel Alexandre Salim --- repo requested: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/24619 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1827427] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-argos - Create GNOME Shell extensions in seconds
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827427 --- Comment #7 from Michel Alexandre Salim --- (In reply to Jeremy Newton from comment #4) > Looks pretty good. I believe the spelling of "dropdown" should be > "drop-down" as rpmlint suggests, but not a blocker. > Thanks. I normally just copy-paste relevant parts of upstream's README, but yeah keeping rpmlint quiet on this would make noticing other issues easier, so I'll do this > I would query upstream to include a license file though, not a blocker > though. Definitely will do > > As well, not a blocker either, but it would be good to include the pull > request for patch0 url in a comment, possibly with a brief one line > explanation/summary of the patch. Ah yes. The URL to the patch is actually there, but I'll put a URL to the pull request itself and some description. Good call, thanks! Thanks for the review! Heh, had a mid-air collision just now when trying to submit this and also assign it to you at the same time. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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 1773717] Review Request: golang-github-haproxytech-models - HAProxy Go structs for API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1773717 --- Comment #9 from Brandon Perkins --- Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/bdperkin/haproxytech/master/SPECS/golang-github-haproxytech-models.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/bdperkin/haproxytech/fedora-31-x86_64/01352904-golang-github-haproxytech-models/golang-github-haproxytech-models-2.0.0-1.fc31.src.rpm Successful copr build: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/bdperkin/haproxytech/fedora-31-x86_64/01352904-golang-github-haproxytech-models/ Changelog: * Mon Apr 27 2020 Brandon Perkins - 2.0.0-1 - Upgrade to version 2.0.0 * Mon Mar 02 2020 Brandon Perkins - 1.2.4-2 - Clean changelog * Wed Nov 13 2019 Brandon Perkins - 1.2.4-1 - Initial 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://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 1773719] Review Request: golang-github-haproxytech-client-native - Go client for HAProxy configuration and runtime API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1773719 --- Comment #12 from Brandon Perkins --- Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/bdperkin/haproxytech/master/SPECS/golang-github-haproxytech-client-native.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/bdperkin/haproxytech/fedora-31-x86_64/01352907-golang-github-haproxytech-client-native/golang-github-haproxytech-client-native-2.0.0-1.fc31.src.rpm Successful copr build: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/bdperkin/haproxytech/fedora-31-x86_64/01352907-golang-github-haproxytech-client-native/ Changelog: * Mon Apr 27 2020 Brandon Perkins - 2.0.0-1 - Upgrade to version 2.0.0 * Wed Apr 15 2020 Brandon Perkins - 1.2.7-1 - Update to version 1.2.7 * Tue Apr 14 2020 Brandon Perkins - 1.2.6-4 - Add specific versions for haproxytech BuildRequires * Mon Apr 13 2020 Brandon Perkins - 1.2.6-3 - Remove runtime/README.md * Mon Mar 02 2020 Brandon Perkins - 1.2.6-2 - Clean changelog * Wed Nov 13 2019 Brandon Perkins - 1.2.6-1 - Initial 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://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 1773720] Review Request: golang-github-haproxytech-dataplaneapi - HAProxy Data Plane API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1773720 --- Comment #15 from Brandon Perkins --- Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/bdperkin/haproxytech/master/SPECS/golang-github-haproxytech-dataplaneapi.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/bdperkin/haproxytech/fedora-31-x86_64/01352909-golang-github-haproxytech-dataplaneapi/golang-github-haproxytech-dataplaneapi-2.0.0-1.fc31.src.rpm Successful copr build: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/bdperkin/haproxytech/fedora-31-x86_64/01352909-golang-github-haproxytech-dataplaneapi/ Changelog: * Mon Apr 27 2020 Brandon Perkins - 2.0.0-1 - Upgrade to version 2.0.0 * Wed Apr 15 2020 Brandon Perkins - 1.2.5-1 - Update to version 1.2.5 * Tue Apr 14 2020 Brandon Perkins - 1.2.4-7 - Change haproxy requires to >= 2.0 as 1.9 was never packaged - Add specific versions for haproxytech BuildRequires * Wed Mar 04 2020 Brandon Perkins - 1.2.4-6 - Use global instead of define macro - Remove defattr macro that is not needed * Mon Mar 02 2020 Brandon Perkins - 1.2.4-5 - Clean changelog * Thu Nov 21 2019 Brandon Perkins - 1.2.4-4 - Suggest logrotate and fix logrotate configuration * Wed Nov 20 2019 Brandon Perkins - 1.2.4-3 - Add man page * Wed Nov 13 2019 Brandon Perkins - 1.2.4-2 - Implement systemd * Wed Nov 13 2019 Brandon Perkins - 1.2.4-1 - Initial 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://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 1773718] Review Request: golang-github-haproxytech-config-parser - HAProxy configuration parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1773718 --- Comment #8 from Brandon Perkins --- Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/bdperkin/haproxytech/master/SPECS/golang-github-haproxytech-config-parser.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/bdperkin/haproxytech/fedora-31-x86_64/01352901-golang-github-haproxytech-config-parser/golang-github-haproxytech-config-parser-2.0.1-1.fc31.src.rpm Successful copr build: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/bdperkin/haproxytech/fedora-31-x86_64/01352901-golang-github-haproxytech-config-parser/ Changelog: * Mon Apr 27 2020 Brandon Perkins - 2.0.1-1 - Upgrade to version 2.0.1 * Mon Mar 02 2020 Brandon Perkins - 1.2.0-1 - Upgrade to version 1.2.0 - Clean changelog * Wed Nov 13 2019 Brandon Perkins - 1.1.10-1 - Initial 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://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 1816301] Review Request: openfoam - computational fluid dynamics
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816301 --- Comment #15 from mark.ole...@esi-group.com --- A quick question for understanding packaging: If I now package under /usr/lib/openfoam/PKG instead of tossing things into /opt/PKG, rpmlint complains if I do not include /usr/lib/openfoam in the %files list. But if I package openfoamVER1 as /usr/lib/openfoam/openfoamVER1 and openfoamVER2 as /usr/lib/openfoam/openfoamVER2, who is supposed to "own" the directory? Both, neither? In a non-RPM world I would think that the last one out should try to remove the directory if possible, but that sounds like a bad hack. Or does one simply state that /usr/lib/openfoam belongs to each package and just rely on the fact that a rmdir of a non-empty directory should fail? Thanks, /mark -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1775443] Review Request: wlr-randr - An xrandr clone for wlroots compositors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1775443 --- Comment #14 from Morian Sonnet --- Thanks for reviewing! Seems like FAS calls to_lowercase on the email address and Bugzilla allows only to change the email once. FAS and Bugzilla emails should be equal now, different from before though. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1828565] Review Request: lcms - Color Management System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1828565
Artem changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||ego.corda...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ego.corda...@gmail.com
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Artem ---
This is re-review. You should mention this.
---
Issues:
===
- Package does not use a name that already exists.
Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/lcms
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names
Not issue since this is re-review of retired package. Package approved.
---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License". 151 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /mnt/data-
linux/tmp/review/1828565-lcms/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.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 194560 bytes in 5 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package 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
[Bug 1828565] New: Review Request: lcms - Color Management System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1828565 Bug ID: 1828565 Summary: Review Request: lcms - Color Management System Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: vit...@easycoding.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://xvitaly.fedorapeople.org/for-review/lcms.spec SRPM URL: https://xvitaly.fedorapeople.org/for-review/lcms-1.19-29.fc32.src.rpm Description: LittleCMS intends to be a small-footprint, speed optimized color management engine in open source form. Fedora Account System Username: xvitaly -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1822971] Review Request: notcurses - character graphics and TUI library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822971
Nick Black changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(d...@qemfd.net) |
--- Comment #34 from Nick Black ---
(1) You are correct in all analysis of the dependencies and deployment of the
-data package--it would just be part of the main package. The only reason why I
made it distinct was due to wanting to avoid replication across multiple
architecture-dependent binary packages. I.e. if the package is provided for 5
architectures, without this no-arch package, you're replicating the same 5MB
video across all five architectures, consuming 25MB on FTP servers etc. If this
is not a big concern for Fedora (it's a cause for global apocalypse in Debian
thinking), it can happily be subsumed into an existing binary-specific package.
So I think what I'll do is *almost* what you allude to, and *almost* what I
mentioned earlier:
- split out the binaries from the shared libraries, into notcurses-utils
- fold notcurses-data into notcurses-utils
This way, there's no extra package, people who are only installing notcurses as
a dependency for some other program needn't install stuff they don't need, and
everything is still shipped. Sound good?
(2) Done.
(3) exit(2) is called only in the following structure:
ret->pid = launch_pipe_process(, >pidfd);
if(ret->pid == 0){
execv(bin, arg);
fprintf(stderr, "Error execv()ing %s\n", bin);
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}else if(ret->pid < 0){
free(ret);
return NULL;
}
so I think that's safe.
(4) Got it, will test the installed rpm for the proper perms this time, how
embarrassing.
Thankfully, all issues you've raised can be fixed with specfile changes, and
thus do not require a new upstream release. I ought have all issues fixed by
EoD.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this 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 1827784] Review Request: python-jsonrpc-server - JSON RPC 2.0 server library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827784 Mukundan Ragavan changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-04-27 18:39:40 --- Comment #8 from Mukundan Ragavan --- Thanks for the review. I have built this package on rawhide and F32. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1775443] Review Request: wlr-randr - An xrandr clone for wlroots compositors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1775443 --- Comment #13 from Till Hofmann --- As I still need to sponsor you, I realized that your emails in FAS and on Bugzilla do not match exactly; one uses camel case, the other one all lower case. Not sure if this matters, but can you change that so they match exactly? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1775443] Review Request: wlr-randr - An xrandr clone for wlroots compositors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1775443
Till Hofmann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #12 from Till Hofmann ---
Package approved!
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: "Expat License", "Unknown or generated", "NTP License (legal
disclaimer)". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/thofmann/fedora/reviews/review-wlr-
randr/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.
[-]: 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.
[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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary
[Bug 1825183] Review Request: hanamin-fonts - Japanese Mincho-typeface TrueType font
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1825183
--- Comment #4 from Nicolas Mailhot ---
Hi Parag
spec cleanliness aside (and I don’t pretend to be a CJK expert) I think Akira
is right, we’re not in presence of two font families, but a single one, split
over two files to workaround the OpenType pre-file glyph number limit. And that
will work fine because fontconfig will merge the files as a single family.
While
fc-scan -f
"%{family[0]};%{style[0]};%{fullname[0]};%{width};%{weight};%{slant};%{fontversion};%{file}\n"
/usr/share/fonts/clm-* |sort -t ';' -k1,1d -k4,4n -k5,5n -k6,6n -k2,2d
-k7,7dr | uniq | column --separator ';' -t
is horrible from a usability POW, its results are useful
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this 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 1827427] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-argos - Create GNOME Shell extensions in seconds
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827427 Jeremy Newton changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|alexjn...@fastmail.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://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 1827427] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-argos - Create GNOME Shell extensions in seconds
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827427 Jeremy Newton changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #6 from Jeremy Newton --- Sorry, forgot to move to assigned -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1378416] Review Request: nodejs-postcss - Transforming styles with JS plugins
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378416 Matthias Runge changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed||2020-04-27 16:25:39 --- Comment #3 from Matthias Runge --- I don't use this anymore. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1378417] Review Request: nodejs-grunt-postcss - Apply several post-processors to your CSS using PostCSS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378417 Bug 1378417 depends on bug 1378416, which changed state. Bug 1378416 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-postcss - Transforming styles with JS plugins https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378416 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1826950] Review Request: python-jsonfield - is a reusable model field that allows you to store validated JSON, automatically handling serialization to and from the database.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826950 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-120aea1636 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-120aea1636 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1826950] Review Request: python-jsonfield - is a reusable model field that allows you to store validated JSON, automatically handling serialization to and from the database.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826950 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-120aea1636 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-120aea1636 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-28f36b7cca has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-28f36b7cca -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1827887] Review Request: mingw-biblesync - A Cross-platform library for sharing Bible navigation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827887 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-3c66ece950 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-3c66ece950 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1827887] Review Request: mingw-biblesync - A Cross-platform library for sharing Bible navigation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827887 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-d752e3b411 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-d752e3b411 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1827887] Review Request: mingw-biblesync - A Cross-platform library for sharing Bible navigation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827887 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-d80df47a6f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-d80df47a6f -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1825681] Review Request: create-fake-rpm - Generate fake (S)RPM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1825681 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-9d5dfb64d6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-9d5dfb64d6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1775443] Review Request: wlr-randr - An xrandr clone for wlroots compositors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1775443 --- Comment #11 from Morian Sonnet --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/momosomium/wlr-randr/fedora-32-x86_64/01352304-wlr-randr/wlr-randr.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/momosomium/wlr-randr/fedora-32-x86_64/01352304-wlr-randr/wlr-randr-0-3.20200408git5ff601a.fc32.src.rpm * Removed explicit requires * Made Changelog consistent with bug-report discussion (I made that version number change to allow the package a clean start, without my rather large number of mini changes) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1825681] Review Request: create-fake-rpm - Generate fake (S)RPM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1825681 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-d8c9d1d028 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-d8c9d1d028 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2020-93ec113f68 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-93ec113f68 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1825681] Review Request: create-fake-rpm - Generate fake (S)RPM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1825681 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2020-ef8ddb60a9 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-ef8ddb60a9 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1825681] Review Request: create-fake-rpm - Generate fake (S)RPM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1825681 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-d8c9d1d028 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-d8c9d1d028 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1268744] Review Request: rubygem-ast - A library for working with Abstract Syntax Trees
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268744 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ppi...@redhat.com --- Comment #8 from Petr Pisar --- Ilya, you probably forgot to import and build this package. If you do not want to maintain the package anymore, please close this bug report as NOTABUG. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1268744] Review Request: rubygem-ast - A library for working with Abstract Syntax Trees
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268744 Bug 1268744 depends on bug 1268742, which changed state. Bug 1268742 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-bacon-colored_output - Colored output for Bacon test framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268742 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1268742] Review Request: rubygem-bacon-colored_output - Colored output for Bacon test framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268742 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED CC||ppi...@redhat.com Fixed In Version||rubygem-bacon-colored_outpu ||t-1.1.1-4.fc29 Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2020-04-27 14:31:34 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1268758] Review Request: rubygem-rubocop - Automatic Ruby code style checking tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268758 Bug 1268758 depends on bug 1268703, which changed state. Bug 1268703 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-powerpack - A few useful extensions to core Ruby classes https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268703 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1268703] Review Request: rubygem-powerpack - A few useful extensions to core Ruby classes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268703 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED CC||ppi...@redhat.com Fixed In Version||rubygem-powerpack-0.1.1-4.f ||c27 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-04-27 14:29:47 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1827784] Review Request: python-jsonrpc-server - JSON RPC 2.0 server library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827784 --- Comment #7 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-jsonrpc-server -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1433795] Review Request: nodejs-update-notifier - Update notifications for your CLI app
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1433795 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added CC||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://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 1814349] Rename Request: google-caladea-fonts - Caladea, a serif font family metric-compatible with Cambria font family
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1814349 --- Comment #11 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/google-caladea-fonts -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 914790] Review Request: mingw-libcacard - CAC (Common Access Card) library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=914790 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added CC||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://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 1405111] Review Request: golang-github-mtrmac-gpgme - Go wrapper for the GPGME library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1405111 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ppi...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|l...@redhat.com --- Comment #3 from Petr Pisar --- Jan, it seems you forgot to import and build this 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://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 1232816] Review Request: nodejs-spdx - SPDX License Expression Syntax parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1232816 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW CC||ppi...@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://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 1378416] Review Request: nodejs-postcss - Transforming styles with JS plugins
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378416 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW CC||ppi...@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://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 1359402] Review Request: coot - crystallographic macromolecular building toolkit (unretire request)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359402 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ppi...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|anto.tra...@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://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 1828205] Review Request: doctest - fast header-only C++ unit testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1828205
David Cantrell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(d...@qemfd.net)
--- Comment #2 from David Cantrell ---
Condensed list of items to take care of for review:
* Make the package a noarch package with: BuildArch: noarch
* Drop '%global debug_package %{nil}' since the noarch thing will take care of
that.
* In %install, you don't need to install the docs. Just use the %doc macro in
%files and reference files in the source dir. They will be installed to
%{_docdir}/%{name}
* Drop '%docdir' line from %files section.
* There is no %changelog section.
Everything else checks out. Compliant with packaging policy, has an allowed
license, etc.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this 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 1827948] Review Request: python-spyking-circus - Fast and scalable spike sorting of large-scale extracellular recordings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827948 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-f7314234a8 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-f7314234a8 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1827948] Review Request: python-spyking-circus - Fast and scalable spike sorting of large-scale extracellular recordings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827948 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-14db45aad6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-14db45aad6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1828205] Review Request: doctest - fast header-only C++ unit testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1828205
--- Comment #1 from David Cantrell ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: doctest : /usr/include/doctest/doctest.h
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/#_devel_packages
- Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/doc/doctest/CHANGELOG.md
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/#_duplicate_files
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[ ]: 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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License", "Boost Software
License (v1.0)", "Expat License Boost Software License (v1.0)", "*No
copyright* GNU General Public License (v3)", "Apache License (v2.0)".
199 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/dcantrell/doctest/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[ ]: 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 61440 bytes in 2 files.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
[Bug 1822971] Review Request: notcurses - character graphics and TUI library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822971
David Cantrell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(d...@qemfd.net)
--- Comment #33 from David Cantrell ---
Condensed summary:
* The notcurses-data package does not really make sense to me. The main
package requires it, so there's never an instance where you wouldn't have the
notcurses package installed and not the data subpackage. To me what would make
more sense is having a notcurses-demo subpackage that contains the demo
programs and the data files used by those demos. Reduce the notcurses main
package to just the shared libraries needed for runtime use. This is just my
opinion and the split up is your decision, but having a dedicated demo
subpackage would make more sense to me.
* If you stick with the notcurses-data package, then it needs an explicit
Requires on the main package in the format "Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} =
%{version}-%{release}"
* The notcurses-data package needs to own /usr/share/notcurses. I would reduce
the files section to:
%files data
%{_datadir}/%{name}
(Of course, if you go with the demo subpackage idea then change accordingly.)
* Entries in the %changelog should have a blank line between them.
* /usr/lib64/libnotcurses.so.1.3.3 calls exit(), which I found in
ncsubproc_createv() and friends. If this is deliberate for the library, that's
fine. Without digging in to it more, I'm assuming 'ncsubproc' is spawning
processes for planes, but I haven't gotten that far in my playing with
notcurses.
* /usr/lib64/python3.8/site-packages/notcurses/notcurses.py is still 0644.
Proposed fixes:
* Add "chmod 0755 %{buildroot}%{python3_sitearch}/%{name}/%{name}.py" to
the %install block
* Add "%attr(root, root, 0755) %{python3_sitearch}/%{name}/%{name}.py" to
the %files block for the python package
* Figure out how to modify setup.py to install notcurses.py with 0755
permissions.
BOGUS THINGS THAT CAN BE IGNORED:
* The unversioned /usr/lib64/python3.8/site-packages/_notcurses.abi3.so file is
misleading in the fedora-review tool. This is reporting that
_notcurses.abi3.so is a ".so" file without a corresponding ".so.1.2.3" file
alongside it like you see in /usr/lib or something. It thingks this is a devel
symlink. This fedora-review test should be skipped for Python .so files, so I
think I'll track that down today.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this 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 1827948] Review Request: python-spyking-circus - Fast and scalable spike sorting of large-scale extracellular recordings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827948 --- Comment #9 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-spyking-circus -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1825681] Review Request: create-fake-rpm - Generate fake (S)RPM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1825681 --- Comment #9 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/create-fake-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 1827887] Review Request: mingw-biblesync - A Cross-platform library for sharing Bible navigation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827887 --- Comment #5 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mingw-biblesync -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1822971] Review Request: notcurses - character graphics and TUI library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822971
--- Comment #32 from David Cantrell ---
For completeness, comments on the manual items:
(In reply to David Cantrell from comment #31)
> [ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
It does not.
> [ ]: Package contains no static executables.
It does not.
> [ ]: 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.
They are.
> Generic:
> [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
> other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
> Guidelines.
Apache Linux 2.0, ASL 2.0 noted in License tag.
> [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
> Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
> found: "Unknown or generated", "Apache License (v2.0)", "*No
> copyright* Apache License (v2.0)". 218 files have unknown license.
> Detailed output of licensecheck in
> /home/dcantrell/notcurses/licensecheck.txt
Apache Linux 2.0, ASL 2.0 noted in License tag.
> [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
It is.
> [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
> Note: No known owner of /usr/share/notcurses
It does.
> [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
> Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/notcurses
The -data package should own %{_datadir}/%{name} in %files. It's likely
sufficient to just do:
%files data
%{_datadir}/%{name}
And that will pick up the contents of the directory as well as the directory
itself.
> [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
It does.
> [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
It does not.
> [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
Need to skip a line between changelog entries.
> [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
Correct, using the DFSG release tarball for notcurses.
> [ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
N/A
> [ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package
They are.
> [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
It does not.
> [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
> names).
It does.
> [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
It is.
> [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
No conflicts.
> [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
It does.
> [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
> Provides are present.
N/A
> [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
They are.
> [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
It is.
> [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
N/A
> [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
Yes
> [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
Not required.
> [ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
> (~1MB) or number of files.
> Note: Documentation size is 143360 bytes in 4 files.
Not necessary.
> [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
That's what this review is doing.
> Python:
> [ ]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
> process.
It does not.
> [ ]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
> provide egg info.
It does.
> [ ]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
Yes.
> Generic:
> [ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
> file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
License already included in the source.
> [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
They are.
> [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
> Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
> notcurses-data
notcurses-data needs:
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
> [ ]: Package functions as described.
It does.
> [ ]: Latest version is packaged.
It is.
> [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
It does not.
> [ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
> translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
Yes.
> [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
> architectures.
It does.
> [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass.
N/A
> [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
> files.
It does.
> Rpmlint
> ---
> Checking: notcurses-1.3.3-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
> notcurses-devel-1.3.3-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
> notcurses-static-1.3.3-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
> notcurses-data-1.3.3-1.fc33.noarch.rpm
>
[Bug 1824156] Review Request: exfatprogs - Userspace utilities for exFAT filesystems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1824156 --- Comment #15 from Eric Sandeen --- I have no strong preferences or opinions re: conflicts/provides/obsoletes/whatever, that's not my strong point at all. So please don't take anything I said there as an imperative. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1822971] Review Request: notcurses - character graphics and TUI library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822971
David Cantrell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Whiteboard|BuildFails |
--- Comment #31 from David Cantrell ---
Latest package reviewed:
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[ ]: 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.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "Apache License (v2.0)", "*No
copyright* Apache License (v2.0)". 218 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/dcantrell/notcurses/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/notcurses
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/notcurses
[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[ ]: 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 143360 bytes in 4 files.
[ ]: 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 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]: Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if
present.
Note: Package has .a files: notcurses-static.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[ ]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[ ]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[
[Bug 1828205] Review Request: doctest - fast header-only C++ unit testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1828205 David Cantrell changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|dcantr...@redhat.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value 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://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 1827343] Review Request: golang-github-urfave-cli-2 - package for building command line apps in Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827343 Andreas Gerstmayr changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-04-27 12:27:30 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1825183] Review Request: hanamin-fonts - Japanese Mincho-typeface TrueType font
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1825183 Parag Nemade changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pnem...@redhat.com --- Comment #3 from Parag Nemade --- I thought this can be packaged like this https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/pnemade/fedora-review/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01345510-hanamin-fonts/hanamin-fonts.spec -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1775443] Review Request: wlr-randr - An xrandr clone for wlroots compositors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1775443 Till Hofmann changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1775443] Review Request: wlr-randr - An xrandr clone for wlroots compositors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1775443 --- Comment #10 from Till Hofmann --- It looks like you reset the Release to `Release: 1.`? You shouldn't do that, because its version is then lower than the previous version, e.g., 0-1.20200408 < 0-2.20200301. rpmdev-vercmp is a handy tool to verify that the version ordering is correct. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1775443] Review Request: wlr-randr - An xrandr clone for wlroots compositors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1775443 --- Comment #9 from Till Hofmann --- No worries, no time wasted :) > Requires: pkgconfig(wayland-client) > Requires: pkgconfig(wlroots) This is most probably wrong, a package should not require devel packages. Note that the dependency on wayland-client is picked up automatically. [More precisely, the dependency on libwayland-client.so.0()(64bit) is picked up automatically]. So, just removing those two lines should be sufficient. See [1] for some more information. Also, please keep the changelog intact. It currently contains a single entry, but you updated it at least once. [1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_explicit_requires -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1775443] Review Request: wlr-randr - An xrandr clone for wlroots compositors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1775443 --- Comment #8 from Morian Sonnet --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/momosomium/wlr-randr/fedora-31-x86_64/01351788-wlr-randr/wlr-randr.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/momosomium/wlr-randr/fedora-31-x86_64/01351788-wlr-randr/wlr-randr-0-1.20200408git5ff601a.fc31.src.rpm Ok, here it is. Sorry for wasting your time again. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1828205] Review Request: doctest - fast header-only C++ unit testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1828205 Nick Black changed: What|Removed |Added Link ID||Red Hat Bugzilla 177841 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1828205] New: Review Request: doctest - fast header-only C++ unit testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1828205 Bug ID: 1828205 Summary: Review Request: doctest - fast header-only C++ unit testing Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: d...@qemfd.net QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://github.com/dankamongmen/fedora-lady/blob/master/doctest.spec SRPM URL: https://www.dsscaw.com/repos/dnf/doctest-2.3.7-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: A fast (both in compile times and runtime) C++ testing framework, with the ability to write tests directly along production source (or in their own source, if you prefer). Fedora Account System Username: nickblack This is my second Fedora package; my first is Notcurses (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822971). Notcurses will use this package as a build-dependency once admitted (right now the former's unit tests are disabled by the spec file). I'm a big fan of this header-only solution for C++ unit testing: it's fast, robust, and flexible. I've verified the build from SRPM using 'mock'. I will need a sponsor, but this ought be an easy package to 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 1824156] Review Request: exfatprogs - Userspace utilities for exFAT filesystems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1824156 --- Comment #14 from Simone Caronni --- (In reply to Eric Sandeen from comment #12) > btw exfat-utils has now been renamed exfatprogs as of v1.0.2: > > === > This is the second release of exfatprogs since the initial version(1.0.1). > We have received various feedbacks and patches since the previous release > and applied them in this release. Thanks for feedback and patches! > > According to Goldwyn's comments, We renamed the project name from > exfat-utils to exfatprogs. However, There is an opinion that just renaming > the name is not enough. Because the binary names(mkfs.exfat, fsck.exfat) > still are same with ones in current exfat-utils RPM package. > === > > I'll probably chime in on that thread, I think keeping the binary names is > the only way to go, but a conflicts: tag in packaging might be wise? > > -Eric As you wish, but then in the end the conflict in the package is the same as the conflict in the files. I would still favour obsoleting/provides exfat-utils. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1824156] Review Request: exfatprogs - Userspace utilities for exFAT filesystems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1824156
--- Comment #13 from Simone Caronni ---
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #10)
> > URL:https://github.com/exfat-utils/exfat-utils
>
> The URL should be "https://github.com/exfatprogs/exfatprogs;
Good point :D
> > Source0:%{url}/archive/%{version}.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
>
> This should be "%{url}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz"
Fixed, I was stuck with the old format.
> There's also missing BRs for gcc and make, as those are not guaranteed in
> the build root anymore.
Added, not cleaning the mock buildroot was not a good idea.
> > Requires: libexfat%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
>
> This self-requires is completely pointless, please remove it
>
> There's an undefined macro "%{libs}" in the summary. This probably should be
> changed to "libextfat".
Fixed, leftovers from some other changes.
> === Scriptlets ===
>
> "%ldconfig_scriptlets libextfat" is completely unneeded. It does nothing on
> Fedora, and this package will not be useful on non-Fedora without the kernel
> module being backported first. And if it's getting backported to anything,
> it'd be EL8, which *also* does not need this.
I actually was planning to build it also for RHEL 7, leaving the option for the
user to add DKMS/kmod modules for it. I will add it eventually if needed.
Spec URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/exfatprogs.spec
SRPM URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/exfatprogs-1.0.2-1.fc32.src.rpm
- Update to 1.0.2.
- Added gcc/make build requirements.
- Fixed URL and source URL.
- Removed useless require on libexfat and macro in libexfat-devel summary.
- Removed ldconfig scriptlet.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this 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 1816733] Review Request: rust-libslirp - High-level bindings & helper process for libslirp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816733 --- Comment #4 from Marc-Andre Lureau --- ping Igor? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1827901] Review Request: zswap-cli - Command-line tool to control zswap options
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827901 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-5e3032c74d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-5e3032c74d --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-75d218e536 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-75d218e536 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1827901] Review Request: zswap-cli - Command-line tool to control zswap options
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827901 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-5e3032c74d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-5e3032c74d -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1827948] Review Request: python-spyking-circus - Fast and scalable spike sorting of large-scale extracellular recordings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827948 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST --- Comment #8 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) --- (In reply to greg.hellings from comment #7) > For the sake of completeness I'll say: fedora-review still claims it can't > install, but testing from a rawhide container the RPM installs just fine. Thank you. I'd tested it out manually too, and it was OK. I'll double check why fedora-review is unhappy before building. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1825291] Review Request: s-nail - Environment for sending and receiving mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1825291 Nikola Forró changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2020-04-27 07:17:29 -- 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 1775443] Review Request: wlr-randr - An xrandr clone for wlroots compositors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1775443 Till Hofmann changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(thofmann@fedorapr | |oject.org) | --- Comment #7 from Till Hofmann --- You should also upload the SRPM somewhere. It's usually best to stick to the format in the initial bug template, as this allows fedora-review to pick up the URLs, here's an example: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1824467#c4 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1795360] Review Request: dhcpd-pools - ISC dhcpd lease analysis and reporting
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795360 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2020-6c81119e4a has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-6c81119e4a See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1827948] Review Request: python-spyking-circus - Fast and scalable spike sorting of large-scale extracellular recordings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827948 --- Comment #7 from greg.helli...@gmail.com --- For the sake of completeness I'll say: fedora-review still claims it can't install, but testing from a rawhide container the RPM installs just fine. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1827887] Review Request: mingw-biblesync - A Cross-platform library for sharing Bible navigation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827887 --- Comment #4 from greg.helli...@gmail.com --- >- 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. > Note: License file COPYING is not marked as %license > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- > guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text >^ >Please use the %license macro for the LICENSE files. Fixed this. >- Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if > present. > Note: Package has .a files: mingw32-biblesync, mingw64-biblesync. Illegal > package name: mingw32-biblesync, mingw64-biblesync. Does not provide > -static: mingw32-biblesync, mingw64-biblesync. > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- > guidelines/#packaging-static-libraries > >^ The *.dll.a files aren't static libraries, so I think this is a false >positive. Please double check this. (There aren't any static libraries in the >package at all.) Yeah, a .dll.a file is a specific thing to MinGW. In some ways it's a static library, but it's the stub another .dll or a .exe needs to link to that knows how to locate and call the .dll. Real static libraries in MinGW end in just .a. I'm not generating them for Biblesync. Thanks for the 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 1795360] Review Request: dhcpd-pools - ISC dhcpd lease analysis and reporting
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795360 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2020-e4f3a45115 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-e4f3a45115 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1827948] Review Request: python-spyking-circus - Fast and scalable spike sorting of large-scale extracellular recordings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827948 greg.helli...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from greg.helli...@gmail.com --- Looks good 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://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 1795360] Review Request: dhcpd-pools - ISC dhcpd lease analysis and reporting
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795360 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2020-650b6557cd has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-650b6557cd See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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
