[Bug 1839263] Review Request: rust-xcursor - Library for loading XCursor themes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1839263 --- Comment #3 from Michel Alexandre Salim --- Turns out the docs were missing because `Cargo.toml` has an `includes` directive that only whitelists some source files and the `Cargo.toml` file. Added the docs to it in a pull request and attached the link. Also bumped to 0.3.1. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1839263] Review Request: rust-xcursor - Library for loading XCursor themes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1839263 Michel Alexandre Salim changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(michel@michel-slm | |.name) | --- Comment #2 from Michel Alexandre Salim --- Spec URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/rust/rust-xcursor.spec SRPM URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/rust/rust-xcursor-0.3.1-1.fc32.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1839241] Review Request: rust-xcb - Rust bindings and wrappers for XCB
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1839241 --- Comment #3 from Michel Alexandre Salim --- Probably the missing dependencies Igor mentioned. Not sure why I didn't catch it the first time - will take a look -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1844918] Review Request: rust-choosier - Choose your browser based on the URL given
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1844918 --- Comment #2 from Michel Alexandre Salim --- Thanks! ~ ❯ fedpkg request-repo rust-choosier 1844918 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/25646 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1840179] Review Request: rust-euclid - Geometry primitives (basic linear algebra) for Rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1840179
Michel Alexandre Salim changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||mic...@michel-slm.name
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mic...@michel-slm.name
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Michel Alexandre Salim ---
Looks fine, APPROVED
0.20.13 is out, please upgrade when importing
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache License (v2.0)
or MIT license", "Expat License", "Apache License (v2.0) or MIT
license". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/1840179-rust-
euclid/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]: 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:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rust-
euclid-devel , rust-euclid+default-devel , rust-euclid+libm-devel ,
rust-euclid+mint-devel , rust-euclid+serde-devel , rust-euclid+std-
devel , rust-euclid+unstable-devel
[?]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files
[Bug 1839902] Review Request: rust-urlocator - Locate URLs in character streams
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1839902
Michel Alexandre Salim changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||mic...@michel-slm.name
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mic...@michel-slm.name
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Michel Alexandre Salim ---
Looks good, APPROVED
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[-]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in
/home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/1839902-rust-
urlocator/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]: 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]: 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:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rust-
urlocator-devel , rust-urlocator+default-devel , rust-
urlocator+nightly-devel
[?]: 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
[Bug 1845362] New: Review Request: R-BiocFileCache - Manage Files Across Sessions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1845362 Bug ID: 1845362 Summary: Review Request: R-BiocFileCache - Manage Files Across Sessions Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: tcall...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/R-BiocFileCache.spec SRPM URL: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/R-BiocFileCache-1.12.0-1.fc32.src.rpm Description: This package creates a persistent on-disk cache of files that the user can add, update, and retrieve. It is useful for managing resources (such as custom Txdb objects) that are costly or difficult to create, web resources, and data files used across sessions. Fedora Account System Username: spot This is one of two new dependencies needed to bring R-biomaRt up to the current release in Fedora. Normally, I would also include a koji scratch build, but at the time of this writing, parts of the Fedora infrastructure are migrating from one datacenter to another and this is not feasible. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1845360] New: Review Request: R-AnnotationDbi - Manipulation of SQLite-based annotations in Bioconductor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1845360 Bug ID: 1845360 Summary: Review Request: R-AnnotationDbi - Manipulation of SQLite-based annotations in Bioconductor Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: tcall...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/R-AnnotationDbi.spec SRPM URL: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/R-AnnotationDbi-1.50.0-1.fc32.src.rpm Description: Implements a user-friendly interface for querying SQLite-based annotation data packages. Fedora Account System Username: spot This is one of two new dependencies needed to bring R-biomaRt up to the current release in Fedora. Normally, I would also include a koji scratch build, but at the time of this writing, parts of the Fedora infrastructure are migrating from one datacenter to another and this is not feasible. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1839263] Review Request: rust-xcursor - Library for loading XCursor themes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1839263 Stefano Figura changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review+ |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 1839259] Review Request: rust-wayland-scanner - Wayland Scanner for generating rust APIs from XML wayland protocol files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1839259 Stefano Figura changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |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 1839259] Review Request: rust-wayland-scanner - Wayland Scanner for generating rust APIs from XML wayland protocol files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1839259 Stefano Figura changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review+ |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 1844918] Review Request: rust-choosier - Choose your browser based on the URL given
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1844918
--- Comment #1 from Stefano Figura ---
ACCEPT
The package looks good to me!
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Mozilla Public License
2.0". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/var/home/returntrip/reviews/rust-choosier/1844918-rust-
choosier/licensecheck.txt
[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package 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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in choosier
[?]: 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]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
[Bug 1845322] New: Review Request: python-kyotocabinet - Python3 wrapper for kyotocabinet key-value storage.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1845322 Bug ID: 1845322 Summary: Review Request: python-kyotocabinet - Python3 wrapper for kyotocabinet key-value storage. Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ti.eug...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://tieugene.fedorapeople.org/rpms/python-kyotocabinet/python-kyotocabinet.spec SRPM URL: https://tieugene.fedorapeople.org/rpms/python-kyotocabinet/python-kyotocabinet-1.22-1.fc32.src.rpm Description: Kyoto Cabinet is very fast key-value storage. Koji builds: f31: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=45556167 f32: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=45556194 f33: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=45556209 Fedora Account System Username: tieugene -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1821459] Review Request: golang-github-aryann-difflib - Library for diffing two sequences of text
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1821459 Hirotaka Wakabayashi changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||hiw...@yahoo.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|hiw...@yahoo.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 1821450] Review Request: golang-github-casbin-2 - An authorization library for ACL, RBAC and ABAC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1821450 --- Comment #2 from Hirotaka Wakabayashi --- Hello Fabian, Could you tell me why "golang-github-casbin-2" is needed? You may know this already, but Golang source packages MUST be named after their main import path and golang-github-casbin repository already exists. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Golang/#_naming https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/golang-github-casbin I think golang-github-casbin-2 should exist if golang-github-casbin have already had EPEL branches and golang-github-casbin's update would have breaken its API because EPEL packages must be stable and they must maintain backwards compatibility. Thanks in advance, Hirotaka Wakabayashi -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1845297] New: Review Request: jgmenu - A simple X11 menu
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1845297 Bug ID: 1845297 Summary: Review Request: jgmenu - A simple X11 menu Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ti.eug...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://tieugene.fedorapeople.org/rpms/jgmenu/jgmenu.spec SRPM URL: https://tieugene.fedorapeople.org/rpms/jgmenu/jgmenu-4.2.1-1.fc32.src.rpm Description: A simple, independent, contemporary-looking X11 menu, designed for scripting, ricing and tweaking. Useful for tint2, polymenu, cairo-dock, plank, unity, openbox, i3, dwm and other light environments. Koji builds: f31: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4882 f32: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4935 f33: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4994 Fedora Account System Username: tieugene -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1844918] Review Request: rust-choosier - Choose your browser based on the URL given
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1844918 Stefano Figura changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||stef...@figura.im Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|stef...@figura.im 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 1839241] Review Request: rust-xcb - Rust bindings and wrappers for XCB
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1839241
Stefano Figura changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(michel@michel-slm
||.name)
--- Comment #2 from Stefano Figura ---
I have tried to build this locally but I am getting some errors. Full log here:
https://paste.centos.org/view/18a35627
```
...
...
Compiling xcb v0.9.0 (/builddir/build/BUILD/xcb-0.9.0)
Running `/usr/bin/rustc --crate-name build_script_build build.rs
--error-format=json --json=diagnostic-rendered-ansi --crate-type bin
--emit=dep-info,link -C opt-level=3 -C metadata=efee1a6b9e0f53cf -C
extra-filename=-efee1a6b9e0f53cf --out-dir
/builddir/build/BUILD/xcb-0.9.0/target/release/build/xcb-efee1a6b9e0f53cf -L
dependency=/builddir/build/BUILD/xcb-0.9.0/target/release/deps --extern
libc=/builddir/build/BUILD/xcb-0.9.0/target/release/deps/liblibc-58bb2bbe8badf26a.rlib
-Copt-level=3 -Cdebuginfo=2 -Clink-arg=-Wl,-z,relro,-z,now -Ccodegen-units=1
--cap-lints=warn`
warning: use of deprecated item 'try': use the `?` operator instead
--> build.rs:15:8
|
15 | if try!(fs::metadata(xml_dir)).is_dir() {
|^^^
|
= note: `#[warn(deprecated)]` on by default
warning: use of deprecated item 'try': use the `?` operator instead
--> build.rs:16:22
|
16 | for entry in try!(fs::read_dir(xml_dir)) {
| ^^^
warning: use of deprecated item 'try': use the `?` operator instead
--> build.rs:17:24
|
17 | let path = try!(entry).path();
|^^^
warning: use of deprecated item 'try': use the `?` operator instead
--> build.rs:18:16
|
18 | if try!(fs::metadata()).is_file() {
|^^^
warning: use of deprecated item 'try': use the `?` operator instead
--> build.rs:20:39
|
20 | if ext == "xml" { try!(cb()); }
| ^^^
warning: use of deprecated item 'try': use the `?` operator instead
--> build.rs:60:30
|
60 | let xml_file_mtime = try!(fs::metadata(_file)).mtime();
| ^^^
warning: 6 warnings emitted
Running
`/builddir/build/BUILD/xcb-0.9.0/target/release/build/xcb-efee1a6b9e0f53cf/build-script-build`
error: failed to run custom build command for `xcb v0.9.0
(/builddir/build/BUILD/xcb-0.9.0)`
Caused by:
process didn't exit successfully:
`/builddir/build/BUILD/xcb-0.9.0/target/release/build/xcb-efee1a6b9e0f53cf/build-script-build`
(exit code: 101)
--- stderr
...
...
```
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review 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 1845269] Review Request: minitest-stub-const - Stub constants for the duration of a block in MiniTest
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1845269 Pavel Valena changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |minitest-stub-const - |minitest-stub-const - Stub ||constants for the duration ||of a block in MiniTest --- Comment #1 from Pavel Valena --- Sorry, I forgot to fill in Description: Stub constants for the duration of a block in MiniTest. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1845269] New: Review Request: minitest-stub-const -
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1845269 Bug ID: 1845269 Summary: Review Request: minitest-stub-const - Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: pval...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/pvalena/rubygems/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01432339-rubygem-minitest-stub-const/rubygem-minitest-stub-const.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/pvalena/rubygems/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01432339-rubygem-minitest-stub-const/rubygem-minitest-stub-const-0.6-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: Fedora Account System Username: pvalena Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=45554358 CORP build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/pvalena/rubygems/build/1432339/ Required in tests for rubygem-puma-5.0.0.beta1. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1845264] New: Review Request: rubygem-regexp_property_values - Inspect property values supported by Ruby's regex engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1845264 Bug ID: 1845264 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-regexp_property_values - Inspect property values supported by Ruby's regex engine Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: pval...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/pvalena/rubygems/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01432331-rubygem-regexp_property_values/rubygem-regexp_property_values.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/pvalena/rubygems/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01432331-rubygem-regexp_property_values/rubygem-regexp_property_values-1.0.0-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: This small library lets you see which property values are supported by the regular expression engine of the Ruby version you are running, and what they match. Fedora Account System Username: pvalena COPR build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/pvalena/rubygems/build/1432331/ Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=45554171 This package is needed for running tests of `rubygem-regexp_parser` (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1845195). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1826056] Review Request: mesaflash - Configuration and diagnostic tool for Mesa Electronics boards
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826056 Damian Wrobel changed: What|Removed |Added Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value --- Comment #1 from Damian Wrobel --- Changelog: - Update to the latest available version. - Drop patches upstream merged. Spec URL: https://dwrobel.fedorapeople.org/projects/rpmbuild/SPECS/mesaflash.spec SRPM URL: https://dwrobel.fedorapeople.org/projects/rpmbuild/SRPMS/mesaflash-3.4.0-0.3.20200608git946725c.fc31.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 1839263] Review Request: rust-xcursor - Library for loading XCursor themes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1839263 Stefano Figura changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(michel@michel-slm ||.name) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1839263] Review Request: rust-xcursor - Library for loading XCursor themes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1839263 --- Comment #1 from Stefano Figura --- Could you please address these two items? - I noticed your comment about README.md and the license file missing but I see that there is no PR/Issue upstream to address this. - I have also noticed that a new "major" version is released form 0.2.0 we are now to 0.3.1 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1845195] New: Review Request: rubygem-regexp_parser - Scanner, lexer, parser for ruby's regular expressions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1845195 Bug ID: 1845195 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-regexp_parser - Scanner, lexer, parser for ruby's regular expressions Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: pval...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/pvalena/rubygems/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01416088-rubygem-regexp_parser/rubygem-regexp_parser.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/pvalena/rubygems/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01416088-rubygem-regexp_parser/rubygem-regexp_parser-1.7.0-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: A library for tokenizing, lexing, and parsing Ruby regular expressions. Fedora Account System Username: pvalena COPR build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/pvalena/rubygems/build/1416088/ `regexp_property_values` gem is needed for the test suite to pass (in a separate review request), but it's not needed for runtime. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1839263] Review Request: rust-xcursor - Library for loading XCursor themes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1839263 Stefano Figura changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||stef...@figura.im Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|stef...@figura.im 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 1842042] Review Request: repo2module - A tool to take a yum repository and turn it into a Fedora module stream
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1842042 --- Comment #8 from Jakub Kadlčík --- Thank you Neal, Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/frostyx/repo2module/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01432043-repo2module/repo2module.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/frostyx/repo2module/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01432043-repo2module/repo2module-0.1-3.fc33.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 1830712] Review Request: kronometer - A simple KDE stopwatch application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1830712 Kevin Kofler changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #15 from Kevin Kofler --- I'll take the review then, I hope I'll get it done soon. If I take too long, please remind 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 1842042] Review Request: repo2module - A tool to take a yum repository and turn it into a Fedora module stream
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1842042 Neal Gompa changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ngomp...@gmail.com --- Comment #7 from Neal Gompa --- > BuildRequires: python3-libdnf > [...] > Requires: python3-libdnf The code actually uses python3-hawkey, not python3-libdnf, since it uses "import hawkey". -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1836309] Review Request: ghc-time-manager - Scalable timer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1836309 --- Comment #4 from Tristan Cacqueray --- Thank you for the review https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/25628 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1830712] Review Request: kronometer - A simple KDE stopwatch application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1830712 Raphael Groner changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Assignee|projects...@smart.ms|nob...@fedoraproject.org Flags|fedora-review? | --- Comment #14 from Raphael Groner --- TBH I fail to find the time to do the official review in near future, sorry. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1842042] Review Request: repo2module - A tool to take a yum repository and turn it into a Fedora module stream
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1842042 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Kadlčík --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/frostyx/repo2module/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01431188-repo2module/repo2module.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/frostyx/repo2module/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01431188-repo2module/repo2module-0.1-2.fc33.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 1842042] Review Request: repo2module - A tool to take a yum repository and turn it into a Fedora module stream
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1842042
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Kadlčík ---
Thank you Fabio,
you are totally right about the "%global debug_package %{nil}".
I never knew how to fix the error about empty debug packages for pure-python
packages,
and setting debug_package to nil is the most suggested way of doing it
when you try to google a solution. And I believe there is no information about
it
in the packaging documentation. I will try to send a patch for it.
I added "BuildArch: noarch" and it worked perfectly.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review 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 1836309] Review Request: ghc-time-manager - Scalable timer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1836309 --- Comment #3 from Tristan Cacqueray --- What is the cabal-rpm diff? I re-run the `cabal-rpm spec time-manager` command with cabal-rpm-2.0.4 and there was no diff. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1836568] Review Request: python-graphql-relay - Relay library for graphql-core-next
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1836568 --- Comment #4 from Javier Peña --- I see the spec runs pytest in %check, but does not include pytest as a build requirement (not sure if there are other BRs). Could you fix that? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1836567] Review Request: python-graphql-core - GraphQL implementation for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1836567
Javier Peña changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Javier Peña ---
Thanks for the changes! Here is the fedora-review output, a couple notes:
- The font bundling is expected, this is common when using sphinx-build, so no
issues here.
- Licensecheck is wrongly identifying the LICENSE file as "Expat License", when
it is MIT, as stated in the spec.
The package is APPROVED, please go on with the SCM request.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License". 312 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/1836567-python-
graphql-core/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[.]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 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
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[!]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
Note: Package contains font files
[-]: If the source package does not include license
[Bug 1844120] Review Request: Jamulus - A tool for live rehearsale acroos the internet
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1844120 --- Comment #13 from Vasiliy Glazov --- fedora-review -b 1844120 All review must be on rawhide. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1844120] Review Request: Jamulus - A tool for live rehearsale acroos the internet
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1844120 --- Comment #12 from ycollet --- The command line I tested: [SRPMS] $ fedora-review --verbose --mock-config fedora-32-x86_64 --rpm-spec --name jamulus Do you use some other specific flags ? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1636169] Review Request: libxmlb - Library for querying compressed XML metadata
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1636169 Kalev Lember changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-06-08 08:51:16 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1833469] Review Request: ocaml-fieldslib - OCaml record fields as first class values
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1833469 --- Comment #10 from Richard W.M. Jones --- Thanks - no rush, alpha2 was only released last week so I think we've got a few weeks to go. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1844120] Review Request: Jamulus - A tool for live rehearsale acroos the internet
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1844120 --- Comment #11 from Vasiliy Glazov --- I use 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 1825456] Review Request: libvirt-test-API - Python based regression tests for libvirt API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1825456 --- Comment #9 from Richard W.M. Jones --- (In reply to lnie from comment #7) > >There is documentation supplied upstream but it is not packaged. > You mean I should package the pdf ,right? What is the license of the PDF file? In any case it's up to you whether or not to package this file. If packaged it should go into a -doc subpackage because it's quite large. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_documentation > >The source URL is indeed wrong - please fix it. > > I can wget > https://gitlab.com/libvirt/libvirt-test-API/-/archive/1.0/libvirt-test-api-1. > 0.tar.gz manually, > and I can open https://gitlab.com/libvirt/libvirt-test-API > successfully,will try to work it out. Weirdly it works now, but didn't when I tried it on Friday. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1844120] Review Request: Jamulus - A tool for live rehearsale acroos the internet
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1844120 --- Comment #10 from ycollet --- I filed an issue upstream related to the licenses: https://github.com/corrados/jamulus/issues/341 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1844120] Review Request: Jamulus - A tool for live rehearsale acroos the internet
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1844120 --- Comment #9 from ycollet --- I removed INSTALL.md from doc files. I removed the opus code too (with a comment in the spec file). What script do you use to check the licence of the various files in the archive ? The link to the src rpm file: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ycollet/linuxmao/fedora-32-x86_64/01431054-jamulus/jamulus-3.5.5-6.fc32.src.rpm The link to the updated spec file: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ycollet/fedora-spec/master/jamulus/jamulus.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 1840023] Review Request: php-doctrine-common3 - Common library for Doctrine projects version 3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1840023 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |MODIFIED --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-7029a32efc has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-7029a32efc -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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
