[Bug 1826621] Review Request: rmd - Resource Manager Deamon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826621 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-ea57a2e0f7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-ea57a2e0f7 -- 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 1839479] Review Request: python-opencensus - A stats collection and distributed tracing framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1839479 Bug 1839479 depends on bug 1839477, which changed state. Bug 1839477 Summary: Review Request: python-google-api-core - Core Library for Google Client Libraries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1839477 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |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 1839470] Review Request: python-googleapis-common-protos - Common protobufs used in Google APIs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1839470 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-06-15 02:06:11 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- python-google-api-core-1.17.0-1.fc31, python-googleapis-common-protos-1.51.0-1.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1812435] Review Request: python-beautifultable - Print ASCII tables for terminals
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1812435 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- python-beautifultable-0.8.0-2.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1839479] Review Request: python-opencensus - A stats collection and distributed tracing framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1839479 Bug 1839479 depends on bug 1839470, which changed state. Bug 1839470 Summary: Review Request: python-googleapis-common-protos - Common protobufs used in Google APIs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1839470 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |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 1839477] Review Request: python-google-api-core - Core Library for Google Client Libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1839477 Bug 1839477 depends on bug 1839470, which changed state. Bug 1839470 Summary: Review Request: python-googleapis-common-protos - Common protobufs used in Google APIs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1839470 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |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 1830539] Review Request: mdns-scan - Scan for mDNS/DNS-SD services published on the local network
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1830539 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-06-15 02:06:51 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- mdns-scan-0.5-1.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1839477] Review Request: python-google-api-core - Core Library for Google Client Libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1839477 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-06-15 02:06:14 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- python-google-api-core-1.17.0-1.fc31, python-googleapis-common-protos-1.51.0-1.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1823117] Review Request: opensurge - 2D retro platformer inspired by Sonic games
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823117 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-06-15 02:06:29 --- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System --- opensurge-0.5.1.2-6.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1844435] Review Request: jc - Convert output of popular CLI tools to JSON
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1844435 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-06-15 02:06:31 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- jc-1.11.2-3.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1839978] Review Request: php-doctrine-sql-formatter - SQL highlighting library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1839978 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- php-doctrine-sql-formatter-1.1.0-1.fc32 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-5221816b3d -- 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 1839887] Review Request: python-cle - A Python interface for analyzing binary formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1839887 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- python-cle-8.20.6.1-1.fc32 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-945346ba94 -- 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 1839430] Review Request: rust-bzip2 - Bindings to libbzip2 for bzip2 compression and decompression exposed as Reader/Writer streams
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1839430 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-bzip2 -- 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 1844643] Review Request: qwt5-qt5 - Qt Widgets for Technical Applications adapted to Qt5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1844643 --- Comment #7 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/qwt5-qt5 -- 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 1815670] Review Request: python-claripy - An abstraction layer for constraint solvers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815670 --- Comment #10 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-claripy -- 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 1842328] Review Request: python-zstandard - Zstandard bindings for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1842328 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-06-14 22:59:28 --- Comment #4 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski --- Imported and built in rawhide. Thanks for the reviews! -- 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 1842475] Review Request: python-publicsuffix2 - Get a public suffix for a domain name using the Public Suffix List
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1842475 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-06-14 22:59:00 --- Comment #6 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski --- Imported and built in rawhide (with the requested fix). -- 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 1839430] Review Request: rust-bzip2 - Bindings to libbzip2 for bzip2 compression and decompression exposed as Reader/Writer streams
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1839430 Michel Alexandre Salim changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #2 from Michel Alexandre Salim --- Thanks! Requesting repo now (though I can only build this once bzip2-sys is approved) ❯ fedpkg request-repo rust-bzip2 1839430 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/25706 -- 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 1839429] Review Request: rust-bzip2-sys - Bindings to libbzip2 for bzip2 compression and decompression exposed as Reader/Writer streams
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1839429 --- Comment #4 from Michel Alexandre Salim --- Spec URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/rust/rust-bzip2-sys.spec SRPM URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/rust/rust-bzip2-sys-0.1.9+1.0.8-1.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 1839429] Review Request: rust-bzip2-sys - Bindings to libbzip2 for bzip2 compression and decompression exposed as Reader/Writer streams
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1839429 Michel Alexandre Salim changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags||needinfo?(brand...@gmail.co ||m) --- Comment #3 from Michel Alexandre Salim --- updated to 0.1.9 The license texts are not available in the crate, sadly, they are only in the main repo (bzip2-rs) instead of the subdirectory this is in (bzip2-rs/bzip2-sys). I created a pull request and linked it in a comment in the spec file: https://github.com/alexcrichton/bzip2-rs/pull/59 -- 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 1839429] Review Request: rust-bzip2-sys - Bindings to libbzip2 for bzip2 compression and decompression exposed as Reader/Writer streams
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1839429 --- Comment #2 from Michel Alexandre Salim --- Good point, sorry for the late response - will update. -- 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 1811777] Review Request: rubygem-puppet-resource_api - This library provides a simple way to write new native resources for puppet
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811777 Michel Alexandre Salim changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(brand...@gmail.co ||m) --- Comment #6 from Michel Alexandre Salim --- Taking this review -- could you update the spec and SRPM links? They no longer work so fedora-review can't process this. -- 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 1839887] Review Request: python-cle - A Python interface for analyzing binary formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1839887 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-945346ba94 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-945346ba94 -- 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 1811777] Review Request: rubygem-puppet-resource_api - This library provides a simple way to write new native resources for puppet
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811777 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? -- 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 1841336] Review Request: rust-khronos_api - The Khronos XML API Registry, exposed as byte string constants
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1841336 Stefano Figura changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(stef...@figura.im | |) | --- Comment #2 from Stefano Figura --- (In reply to Michel Alexandre Salim from comment #1) > Two files are identified as having the "Khronos license", and I just checked > and they are in the generated -devel RPM. > > Khronos License > --- > khronos_api-3.1.0/api_angle/scripts/egl.xml > khronos_api-3.1.0/api_egl/api/egl.xml > > The license reads like MIT to me, and when searching for occurences in > Fedora I get this that also mark them as MIT, so maybe the declared license > for the package should be "ASL 2.0 and MIT" with a comment listing these two > files. > > https://fedorapeople.org/~airlied/opencl/opencl-headers.spec Thanks for catching this one, I have added the MIT license to the spec file and uploaded spec file and srpm. -- 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 1811774] Review Request: rubygem-puppetserver-ca - A simple CLI tool for interacting with Puppet Server's Certificate Authority
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811774
Michel Alexandre Salim changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(brand...@gmail.co
||m)
--- Comment #10 from Michel Alexandre Salim ---
Almost there. Only issue (that's blocking) is with directory ownerships.
You had these:
%{gem_instdir}/bin/*
%{gem_instdir}/exe/*
Take out the /* part so the package owns the directory as well as the files
inside, otherwise the directories are not owned by any package.
There's also a nit about not packaging fonts in the documentation subpackage,
but that's a non-blocker.
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". 21 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in
/home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/1811774-rubygem-puppetserver-
ca/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/gems/gems/puppetserver-
ca-1.8.0/exe, /usr/share/gems/gems/puppetserver-ca-1.8.0/bin
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners:
/usr/share/gems/gems/puppetserver-ca-1.8.0/bin,
/usr/share/gems/gems/puppetserver-ca-1.8.0/exe, /usr/share/gems/doc,
/usr/share/gems
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
^ false positive, seems to match on the removal of other files
probably take off the -r since you're removing files not
directories
[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.
[!]: 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]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[!]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
Note: Package contains font files
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[Bug 1841336] Review Request: rust-khronos_api - The Khronos XML API Registry, exposed as byte string constants
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1841336 Michel Alexandre Salim changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(stef...@figura.im ||) --- Comment #1 from Michel Alexandre Salim --- Two files are identified as having the "Khronos license", and I just checked and they are in the generated -devel RPM. Khronos License --- khronos_api-3.1.0/api_angle/scripts/egl.xml khronos_api-3.1.0/api_egl/api/egl.xml The license reads like MIT to me, and when searching for occurences in Fedora I get this that also mark them as MIT, so maybe the declared license for the package should be "ASL 2.0 and MIT" with a comment listing these two files. https://fedorapeople.org/~airlied/opencl/opencl-headers.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 1841336] Review Request: rust-khronos_api - The Khronos XML API Registry, exposed as byte string constants
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1841336 Michel Alexandre Salim changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mic...@michel-slm.name 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 1840204] Review request: rust-x11-dl - X11 library bindings for Rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1840204
Michel Alexandre Salim changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||mic...@michel-slm.name
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
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", "*No copyright* Expat License". 31
files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/1840204-rust-x11-dl/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.
[-]: 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:
[-]: 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-x11-dl-devel , rust-x11-dl+default-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 Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps
[Bug 1815670] Review Request: python-claripy - An abstraction layer for constraint solvers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815670 --- Comment #9 from Fabian Affolter --- 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 1833479] Review Request: ocaml-ppx-custom-printf - Printf-style format-strings for user-defined string conversion
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1833479
dan.cer...@cgc-instruments.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|dan.cermak@cgc-instruments.
||com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from dan.cer...@cgc-instruments.com ---
This looks good to me, thanks for your work Jerry: package is approved!
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License". 12 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/dan/fedora-
scm/1833479-ocaml-ppx-custom-printf/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.
[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.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 757760 bytes in 12 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
Ocaml:
[x]: This should never happen
= 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.
[!]: 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 rpms on all
[Bug 1840179] Review Request: rust-euclid - Geometry primitives (basic linear algebra) for Rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1840179 Stefano Figura changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-06-14 20:22:15 -- 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 1839902] Review Request: rust-urlocator - Locate URLs in character streams
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1839902 Stefano Figura changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-06-14 20:21:49 -- 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 1844643] Review Request: qwt5-qt5 - Qt Widgets for Technical Applications adapted to Qt5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1844643 --- Comment #6 from Alexander Ploumistos --- (In reply to Gergely Gombos from comment #5) > LGTM! Drop me an email if you are stuck and need reviewing in the future. Thank you very much Gergely, I'll try to be as prompt with your 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 1844643] Review Request: qwt5-qt5 - Qt Widgets for Technical Applications adapted to Qt5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1844643
Gergely Gombos changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Gergely Gombos ---
LGTM! Drop me an email if you are stuck and need reviewing in the future.
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]: 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.
/usr/lib64/qt5/plugins/designer/libqwt5_designer_plugin.so is 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:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/doc/qt5/html(qwt-
doc)
[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.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 30720 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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 rpms on
[Bug 1833478] Review Request: ocaml-ppx-variants-conv - Generate accessor & iteration functions for OCaml variant types
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1833478
dan.cer...@cgc-instruments.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|dan.cermak@cgc-instruments.
||com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from dan.cer...@cgc-instruments.com ---
Looks good to me Jerry, package is approved. Thank you for your work and
patience!
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License". 13 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/dan/fedora-
scm/1833478-ocaml-ppx-variants-conv/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.
[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.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 51200 bytes in 7 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
Ocaml:
[x]: This should never happen
= 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.
[!]: 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 rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present and
[Bug 1844643] Review Request: qwt5-qt5 - Qt Widgets for Technical Applications adapted to Qt5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1844643 --- Comment #4 from Alexander Ploumistos --- I *think* I got it all. Spec URL: https://alexpl.fedorapeople.org/packages/qwt5-qt5/qwt5-qt5.spec SRPM URL: https://alexpl.fedorapeople.org/packages/qwt5-qt5/qwt5-qt5-5.2.3a-4.20190819giteeacc44.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 1839143] Review Request: mingw-python-requests - MinGW Windows Python requests library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1839143 Bug 1839143 depends on bug 1839141, which changed state. Bug 1839141 Summary: Review Request: mingw-python-certifi - MinGW Windows Python certifi library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1839141 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |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 1812961] Review Request: openosc - Open Object Size Checking Library to detect buffer overflows with built-in metrics
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1812961 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #19 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Sorry I was away for health reasons. Package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1833477] Review Request: ocaml-ppx-sexp-conv - Generate S-expression conversion functions from type definitions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1833477 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- ocaml-ppx-sexp-conv-0.13.0-2.fc32 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-a55671118d -- 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 1830306] Review Request: python-git-revise - Efficiently update, split, and rearrange git commits
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1830306 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- python-git-revise-0.6.0-1.fc32 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-d1530ee346 -- 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 1844850] Review request: antimicroX - Graphical program used to map keyboard buttons and mouse controls to a gamepad
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1844850 --- Comment #8 from Alexander Ploumistos --- (In reply to Gergely Gombos from comment #7) > Here's a detailed compatibility matrix: > https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility > It also says that GPLv3 is OK for the project. Thanks a lot, it turns out that it's the third time I bookmark this page, I should probably give it a better 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 1844850] Review request: antimicroX - Graphical program used to map keyboard buttons and mouse controls to a gamepad
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1844850 --- Comment #7 from Gergely Gombos --- Here's a detailed compatibility matrix: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility It also says that GPLv3 is OK for the project. -- 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 1839476] Review Request: python-msal-extensions - Microsoft Authentication extensions for MSAL Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1839476 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- python-msal-1.3.0-1.fc31, python-msal-extensions-0.2.2-1.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1839475] Review Request: python-msal - Microsoft Authentication Library (MSAL) for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1839475 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- python-msal-1.3.0-1.fc31, python-msal-extensions-0.2.2-1.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1844850] Review request: antimicroX - Graphical program used to map keyboard buttons and mouse controls to a gamepad
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1844850 --- Comment #6 from Gergely Gombos --- Thanks. I am confident, since the project is distributed under GPLv3 license. LGPLv2.1 and LGPLv3 are both listed as GPL compatible [1] by FSF [2], so a mixed license is not needed if the project owner chose a GPLv3 license. The icons README simply states the original license of these files, compliant with the original licenses. [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesCompatMean [2] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html -- 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 1844114] Review Request: golang-github-masterzen-winrm - Command-line tool and library for Windows remote command execution
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1844114 Bug 1844114 depends on bug 1821171, which changed state. Bug 1821171 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-masterzen-simplexml - Go library to generate XML content from a naive DOM https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1821171 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |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 1821171] Review Request: golang-github-masterzen-simplexml - Go library to generate XML content from a naive DOM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1821171 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-06-14 17:02:46 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-masterzen-simplexml-0-0.1.20200604git31eea30.fc32 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1812435] Review Request: python-beautifultable - Print ASCII tables for terminals
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1812435 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-06-14 17:02:14 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- python-beautifultable-0.8.0-2.fc32 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1819265] Review Request: onionscan - Tool for investigating the Dark Web
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1819265 Bug 1819265 depends on bug 1819257, which changed state. Bug 1819257 Summary: Review Request: tiedot - NoSQL database https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1819257 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |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 1839476] Review Request: python-msal-extensions - Microsoft Authentication extensions for MSAL Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1839476 Bug 1839476 depends on bug 1839475, which changed state. Bug 1839475 Summary: Review Request: python-msal - Microsoft Authentication Library (MSAL) for Python https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1839475 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |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 1820855] Review Request: golang-github-jpillora-requestlog- Simple request logging
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1820855 Bug 1820855 depends on bug 1820856, which changed state. Bug 1820856 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-jpillora-ansi - Easy to use ANSI control codes https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1820856 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |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 1839475] Review Request: python-msal - Microsoft Authentication Library (MSAL) for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1839475 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-06-14 17:01:33 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- python-msal-1.3.0-1.fc32, python-msal-extensions-0.2.2-1.fc32 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1819257] Review Request: tiedot - NoSQL database
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1819257 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-06-14 17:01:42 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- tiedot-3.4-2.fc32 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1839476] Review Request: python-msal-extensions - Microsoft Authentication extensions for MSAL Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1839476 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-06-14 17:01:36 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- python-msal-1.3.0-1.fc32, python-msal-extensions-0.2.2-1.fc32 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1820856] Review Request: golang-github-jpillora-ansi - Easy to use ANSI control codes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1820856 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-06-14 17:01:39 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-jpillora-ansi-1.0.2-1.fc32 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1844850] Review request: antimicroX - Graphical program used to map keyboard buttons and mouse controls to a gamepad
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1844850 --- Comment #5 from Alexander Ploumistos --- (In reply to Gergely Gombos from comment #4) > The repo had been forked from a GPLv3+ project [2], and is itself > distributed as GPLv3+, so actually having a mixed license would be an issue, > and upstream should be informed about it. > > Are you thinking about the icons? As I see (src/icons/README.txt) those were > LGPLv2.1 and LGPLv3, so they are allowed to be recombined under GPLv3. Yes, I was trying to figure out what the effective license from combining GPLv3 and LGPLv2.1 is, but I cant, I'm only getting a headache. Unless you are confident that GPLv3+ + LGPLv2+ = GPLv3+, the safest option is to use both licenses, e.g. "GPLv3+ and LGPLv2+". I still can't understand why licensecheck has README.md pegged as GPLv3, but that's not important. -- 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 1844643] Review Request: qwt5-qt5 - Qt Widgets for Technical Applications adapted to Qt5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1844643
--- Comment #3 from Gergely Gombos ---
I don't mind if you own or not own %{_qt5_docdir} - qt5-qtbase owns it, and
it's required by this package through libQt5Core.so.5, up to you to decide.
(It's a 'should' in the guidelines.)
Owning %{_qt5_docdir}/html/ makes sense, since you don't need qwt-doc, and
adding it as a requires just for this doesn't sound too good.
The !-s in the list are only for the detailed issues, nothing else.
Sorry, the ! in the "Large documentation" item is a pass.
ps. Both Gergely and Greg are 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 1844643] Review Request: qwt5-qt5 - Qt Widgets for Technical Applications adapted to Qt5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1844643
Alexander Ploumistos changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(alex.ploumistos@g |
|mail.com) |
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Ploumistos ---
Thanks for taking this Gergely (or do you prefer Greg?)
(In reply to Gergely Gombos from comment #1)
> - Qwt License 1.0 should be "LGPLv2+ with exceptions" according to the
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#SoftwareLicenses
> (Bundled COPYING file is LGPLv2.1 with exceptions.)
I will get it fixed.
> - Feedback needed: qt5-qtbase looks to be required for this package to
> function.
> It owns %{_qt5_docdir}. If it is required anyway, then you "should not" own
> that
> directory. How do you see this?
I was confused about this when I was looking at the other versions of qwt he
have in Fedora, e.g.
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/qwt/blob/master/f/qwt.spec
Rex Dieter writes in his spec file that he takes ownership of the directory in
order to avoid installing other qt or qt-doc dependencies. I don't know what
you might have installed on your systems, but looking at mine, it seems that
QtX applications dump everything under /usr/share/qtX/ and you end up with
files from multiple packages in the same folder.
Personally, I don't mind not owning the directory and adding another
dependency. I will try it like that.
> - You could set "master" to e.g. a "branch" macro, it is used everywhere in
> the specfile,
> and it is not a static value.
I couldn't come up with anything descriptive enough for a mcaro name that would
save me some characters… The upstream of this fork is not going to publish a
versioned release, so until they move to Qwt6, it's always going to be
"master", only the commit tags will change - if they commit anything else ever
again.
> - Maybe you could add to the -doc description that it's HTML documentation?
Will do.
> [!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
> names).
Other than "master", have I forgotten something else?
> [!]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
> (~1MB) or number of files.
> Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 2 files.
What's wrong here?
--
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 1844850] Review request: antimicroX - Graphical program used to map keyboard buttons and mouse controls to a gamepad
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1844850 --- Comment #4 from Gergely Gombos --- Super, thanks! I'll work on these. 'Libantilib' is compiled along with the main app, and is not linked to by other software (more of a design pattern and a future possibility to e.g. integrate this functionality into other software like Lutris), and is required by the app to run. I'll rename to antimicroX-libs. I informed upstream about the soname versioning issue. [1] The repo had been forked from a GPLv3+ project [2], and is itself distributed as GPLv3+, so actually having a mixed license would be an issue, and upstream should be informed about it. Are you thinking about the icons? As I see (src/icons/README.txt) those were LGPLv2.1 and LGPLv3, so they are allowed to be recombined under GPLv3. [1] https://github.com/juliagoda/antimicroX/issues/118#issuecomment-643783318 [2] https://github.com/AntiMicro/antimicro -- 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 1844643] Review Request: qwt5-qt5 - Qt Widgets for Technical Applications adapted to Qt5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1844643
Gergely Gombos changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(alex.ploumistos@g
||mail.com)
--- Comment #1 from Gergely Gombos ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Qwt License 1.0 should be "LGPLv2+ with exceptions" according to the
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#SoftwareLicenses
(Bundled COPYING file is LGPLv2.1 with exceptions.)
- Feedback needed: qt5-qtbase looks to be required for this package to
function.
It owns %{_qt5_docdir}. If it is required anyway, then you "should not" own
that
directory. How do you see this?
- You could set "master" to e.g. a "branch" macro, it is used everywhere in the
specfile,
and it is not a static value.
- Maybe you could add to the -doc description that it's HTML documentation?
Optional.
- Note, I haven't tested the actual software API, only the packaging.
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: 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.
/usr/lib64/qt5/plugins/designer/libqwt5_designer_plugin.so is 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:
[x]: 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.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[?]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
/usr/share/doc/qt5(qt5-qtbase, qwt-doc), /usr/share/doc/qt5/html(qwt-
doc)
[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.
[!]: 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 30720 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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
[Bug 1844850] Review request: antimicroX - Graphical program used to map keyboard buttons and mouse controls to a gamepad
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1844850
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Ploumistos ---
Here are the issues that were picked up by fedora-review, I will need to take a
better look at a few other things as well, such as the licensing scheme, but
you can work on these for now:
1. Missing BR against the compiler, I guess it's gcc-c++.
2. I think I would have gone with antimicroX, antimicroX-libs and
antimicroX-devel, but I also find your separation of libantilib subpackages
reasonable. I think the shared library should either be versioned or moved. Is
it required in order to run antimicroX, to build the package, or is it just
provided in case someone wants to build some other program integrating its
functionality? When rpmlint is run on the packages, it complains:
antimicroX-libantilib.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libantilib.so
libantilib.so
Depending on how it's supposed to be used, moving it to %{_libdir}/%{name} or
%{_libdir}/libantilib/ might be the safest option.
Maybe these will help:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_packages
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_shared_libraries
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#invalid-soname
3. Problems with permissions:
antimicroX.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/doc/antimicroX/Changelog
antimicroX.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/doc/antimicroX/README.md
antimicroX.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/licenses/antimicroX/LICENSE
These three should have the executable bit removed.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_file_permissions
4. File and directory ownership.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/antimicroX/translations,
/usr/share/antimicroX/images, /usr/share/antimicroX/icons
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/antimicroX/images,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24/apps,
/usr/share/antimicroX/translations, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64,
/usr/share/antimicroX/icons, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16,
/usr/share/mime, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps, /usr/share/mime/packages,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64/apps,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps
For the directories under /usr/share/anitimicroX, I believe that changing this
line in your %files section
%dir %{_datadir}/%{name}
to
%{_datadir}/%{name}/
would solve the issue.
For the icon files, you can use something like this:
%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/*/apps/%{name}.*
5. There are multiple licenses present, I need to verify if GPLv3+ is enough,
or if it should be a mixed license or if the effective license is one of the
others. This might take a while.
I'll get back to you if I find something else in the meantime.
--
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 1844643] Review Request: qwt5-qt5 - Qt Widgets for Technical Applications adapted to Qt5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1844643 Gergely Gombos changed: What|Removed |Added CC||gomb...@disroot.org 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 1821794] Review Request: golang-github-piprate-json-gold - JSON-LD processor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1821794
Hirotaka Wakabayashi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Hirotaka Wakabayashi ---
Hello Fabian,
Package approved.
Best,
Hirotaka Wakabayashi
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.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[-]: %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 40960 bytes in 10 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 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]: %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, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
= EXTRA items =
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all
[Bug 1821794] Review Request: golang-github-piprate-json-gold - JSON-LD processor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1821794 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 1821724] Review Request: golang-github-gobwas-pool - Go Pooling Helpers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1821724 --- Comment #1 from Hirotaka Wakabayashi --- Hello Fabian, Could you please include the license text as part of the source code? The source package does not seem to include the text of the license. ``` $ find ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/pool-0.2.0 /home/vagrant/rpmbuild/BUILD/pool-0.2.0 /home/vagrant/rpmbuild/BUILD/pool-0.2.0/_build /home/vagrant/rpmbuild/BUILD/pool-0.2.0/_build/bin /home/vagrant/rpmbuild/BUILD/pool-0.2.0/_build/src /home/vagrant/rpmbuild/BUILD/pool-0.2.0/_build/src/github.com /home/vagrant/rpmbuild/BUILD/pool-0.2.0/_build/src/github.com/gobwas /home/vagrant/rpmbuild/BUILD/pool-0.2.0/_build/src/github.com/gobwas/pool /home/vagrant/rpmbuild/BUILD/pool-0.2.0/golang-github-gobwas-pool-devel.file-list /home/vagrant/rpmbuild/BUILD/pool-0.2.0/option.go /home/vagrant/rpmbuild/BUILD/pool-0.2.0/pbufio /home/vagrant/rpmbuild/BUILD/pool-0.2.0/pbufio/pbufio_go19.go /home/vagrant/rpmbuild/BUILD/pool-0.2.0/pbufio/pbufio_test.go /home/vagrant/rpmbuild/BUILD/pool-0.2.0/pbufio/pbufio.go /home/vagrant/rpmbuild/BUILD/pool-0.2.0/pbufio/pbufio_go110.go /home/vagrant/rpmbuild/BUILD/pool-0.2.0/generic_test.go /home/vagrant/rpmbuild/BUILD/pool-0.2.0/pool.go /home/vagrant/rpmbuild/BUILD/pool-0.2.0/internal /home/vagrant/rpmbuild/BUILD/pool-0.2.0/internal/pmath /home/vagrant/rpmbuild/BUILD/pool-0.2.0/internal/pmath/pmath.go /home/vagrant/rpmbuild/BUILD/pool-0.2.0/internal/pmath/pmath_test.go /home/vagrant/rpmbuild/BUILD/pool-0.2.0/pbytes /home/vagrant/rpmbuild/BUILD/pool-0.2.0/pbytes/pool_test.go /home/vagrant/rpmbuild/BUILD/pool-0.2.0/pbytes/pbytes_test.go /home/vagrant/rpmbuild/BUILD/pool-0.2.0/pbytes/pool.go /home/vagrant/rpmbuild/BUILD/pool-0.2.0/pbytes/pool_sanitize_test.go /home/vagrant/rpmbuild/BUILD/pool-0.2.0/pbytes/pool_sanitize.go /home/vagrant/rpmbuild/BUILD/pool-0.2.0/pbytes/pbytes.go /home/vagrant/rpmbuild/BUILD/pool-0.2.0/generic.go /home/vagrant/rpmbuild/BUILD/pool-0.2.0/README.md ``` If the source package does not include the text of the license(s), the packager should contact upstream and encourage them to correct this mistake. Please see: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text 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 1844850] Review request: antimicroX - Graphical program used to map keyboard buttons and mouse controls to a gamepad
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1844850 Alexander Ploumistos changed: What|Removed |Added CC||alex.ploumis...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|alex.ploumis...@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 1821724] Review Request: golang-github-gobwas-pool - Go Pooling Helpers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1821724 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 1821722] Review Request: golang-github-gobwas-httphead - HTTP header value parsing library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1821722
Hirotaka Wakabayashi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Hirotaka Wakabayashi ---
Hello Fabian,
Package approved.
Best,
Hirotaka Wakabayashi
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.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[-]: %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 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]: %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, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
= EXTRA items =
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all
[Bug 1821722] Review Request: golang-github-gobwas-httphead - HTTP header value parsing library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1821722 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 1821703] Review Request: golang-github-temoto-robotstxt - Robots.txt exclusion protocol implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1821703
Hirotaka Wakabayashi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Hirotaka Wakabayashi ---
Hello Fabian,
Package approved.
Best,
Hirotaka Wakabayashi
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.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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 20480 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 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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: 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, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package should
[Bug 1846782] Review Request: rubygem-rmail - MIME mail parsing and generation library for Ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1846782 Dan Callaghan changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1830697 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1830697 [Bug 1830697] FTI: rubygem-sup: rubygem-sup, rubygem-sup-doc -- 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 1846782] New: Review Request: rubygem-rmail - MIME mail parsing and generation library for Ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1846782 Bug ID: 1846782 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-rmail - MIME mail parsing and generation library for Ruby Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: d...@djc.id.au QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~dcallagh/rubygem-rmail/rubygem-rmail.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~dcallagh/rubygem-rmail/rubygem-rmail-1.1.3-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: RMail is a lightweight mail library containing various utility classes and modules that allow ruby scripts to parse, modify, and generate MIME mail messages. Fedora Account System Username: dcallagh (Please note that this is a re-review of an existing retired package. Retirement was done in bug 1675950 because the original version 1.0.0 FTBFS however there is now an active upstream and the latest release builds is fixed.) -- 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 1801527] Review Request: golang-gopkg-redis-5 - type-safe Redis client for Golang
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1801527 Mattia Verga changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-06-14 08:03:27 --- Comment #6 from Mattia Verga --- This package was approved and imported in repositories, but this review ticket was never closed. I'm closing it 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 1770162] Review Request: python-molten - A minimal, extensible, fast and productive API framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1770162 Mattia Verga changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-06-14 08:01:54 --- Comment #9 from Mattia Verga --- This package was approved and imported in repositories, but this review ticket was never closed. I'm closing it 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 1765591] Review Request: oval-graph - Tool for visualization of SCAP rule evaluation results
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1765591 Mattia Verga changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-06-14 08:01:05 --- Comment #5 from Mattia Verga --- This package was approved and imported in repositories, but this review ticket was never closed. I'm closing it 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 1768774] Review Request: golang-github-osbuild-composer - An image building service based on osbuild
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1768774 Mattia Verga changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-06-14 08:00:09 --- Comment #8 from Mattia Verga --- This package was approved and imported in repositories, but this review ticket was never closed. I'm closing it 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 1767509] Review Request: polkit-qt-1 - Qt bindings for PolicyKit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1767509 Mattia Verga changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-06-14 07:59:11 --- Comment #6 from Mattia Verga --- This package was approved and imported in repositories, but this review ticket was never closed. I'm closing it 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 1735170] Review Request: nodejs-detect-libc - Module to detect the libc family and version
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1735170 Mattia Verga changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mattia.ve...@protonmail.com Flags||needinfo?(jsmith.fedora@gma ||il.com) --- Comment #3 from Mattia Verga --- This package was approved but never imported. Are you still interested in getting it into Fedora repositories? -- 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 1754654] Review Request: nodejs-async-lock - Lock on asynchronous code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1754654 Mattia Verga changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mattia.ve...@protonmail.com Flags||needinfo?(jsmith.fedora@gma ||il.com) --- Comment #5 from Mattia Verga --- This package was approved but never imported. Are you still interested in getting it into Fedora repositories? -- 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 1745478] Review Request: libbpf - The bpf library from kernel source
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1745478 Mattia Verga changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-06-14 07:55:48 --- Comment #13 from Mattia Verga --- This package was approved and imported in repositories, but this review ticket was never closed. I'm closing it 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 1725840] Review Request: pcsc-lite-acsccid - ACS CCID PC/SC Driver for Linux/Mac OS X
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1725840 Mattia Verga changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-06-14 07:54:22 --- Comment #7 from Mattia Verga --- This package was approved and imported in repositories, but this review ticket was never closed. I'm closing it 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 1450590] Review Request: watchman - a file watching service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1450590 Mattia Verga changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed||2020-06-14 07:52:26 --- Comment #22 from Mattia Verga --- Closing after two years without any response from the original submitter. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449 [Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter response should be blocking this bug. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1564720] Review Request: watchman - a file watching service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1564720 Mattia Verga changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mattia.ve...@protonmail.com Flags||needinfo?(l...@redhat.com) --- Comment #7 from Mattia Verga --- This package was approved but never imported. Are you still interested in getting it into Fedora repositories? -- 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 1266723] Review Request: rubygem-ncursesw - Ruby wrapper for the ncurses library, with wide character support
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266723 Dan Callaghan changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1830697 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1830697 [Bug 1830697] FTI: rubygem-sup: rubygem-sup, rubygem-sup-doc -- 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 1676540] Review Request: nodejs-is-plain-obj - Check if a value is a plain object
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1676540 Mattia Verga changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-06-14 07:41:59 --- Comment #4 from Mattia Verga --- This package was approved and imported in repositories, but this review ticket was never closed. I'm closing it 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 1839978] Review Request: php-doctrine-sql-formatter - SQL highlighting library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1839978 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-5221816b3d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-5221816b3d -- 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 #6 from Igor Raits --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-xcursor -- 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 1839258] Review Request: rust-wayland-commons - Common types and structures used by wayland-client and wayland-server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1839258 --- Comment #3 from Igor Raits --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-wayland-commons -- 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 #8 from Igor Raits --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-xcb -- 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 #5 from Michel Alexandre Salim --- src/fedora/pkgs took 3s ❯ fedpkg request-repo rust-xcursor 1839263 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/25684 -- 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 1839258] Review Request: rust-wayland-commons - Common types and structures used by wayland-client and wayland-server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1839258 --- Comment #2 from Michel Alexandre Salim --- src/fedora/pkgs took 3s ❯ fedpkg request-repo rust-wayland-commons 1839258 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/25683 -- 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 #7 from Michel Alexandre Salim --- src/fedora/pkgs ❯ fedpkg request-repo rust-xcb 1839241 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/25682 -- 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
