[Bug 1842225] Review Request: python-authlib - Build OAuth and OpenID Connect servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1842225 --- Comment #3 from Dan Callaghan --- Thanks a lot for sponsoring Kai, Robert-André. Kai, are you still willing to maintain this package? It would be great to get this one in so we can finally update matrix-synapse. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1872542] Review Request: lua-lunitx - Unit testing framework for Lua
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872542 Michel Alexandre Salim changed: What|Removed |Added Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value --- Comment #1 from Michel Alexandre Salim --- reference for renaming packages: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#renaming-or-replacing-existing-packages -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1872542] Review Request: lua-lunitx - Unit testing framework for Lua
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872542 Michel Alexandre Salim changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1864091 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1864091 [Bug 1864091] lua-lunit: FTBFS in Fedora rawhide/f33 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1872542] New: Review Request: lua-lunitx - Unit testing framework for Lua
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872542 Bug ID: 1872542 Summary: Review Request: lua-lunitx - Unit testing framework for Lua Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mic...@michel-slm.name QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/lua/lua-lunitx.spec SRPM URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/lua/lua-lunitx-0.8.1-1.fc32.src.rpm Description: This is lunitx Version 0.8.1, an extended version of Lunit for Lua 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4. Lunit is a unit testing framework for lua. (This package obsoletes the existing, unmaintained lua-lunit) Fedora Account System Username: salimma -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1862798] Review Request: rust-parsec-client - Parsec Client library for the Rust ecosystem
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862798 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zebo...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - You need to specify what you have changed with the fix-metadata.diff patch and add the PR you created for it: # Initial patched metadata # - Bump num to 0.4.0 https:// ... Patch0: parsec-client-fix-metadata.diff - Missing deps: DEBUG util.py:621: Error: DEBUG util.py:621: Problem: nothing provides requested (crate(mockstream/default) >= 0.0.3 with crate(mockstream/default) < 0.0.4) DEBUG util.py:623: (try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages or '--nobest' to use not only best candidate packages) Please fill a new Review Request for this package. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1862796] Review Request: rust-parsec-interface - Parsec interface library to communicate using the wire protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862796 --- Comment #11 from Robert-André Mauchin --- I forgot: You need to add a comment explaining what you have change with the fix-metadata patch, and add a link to n upstream PR adding these changes. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1862796] Review Request: rust-parsec-interface - Parsec interface library to communicate using the wire protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862796
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(jsmith.fedora@gma
||il.com)
--- Comment #10 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Ok so for rust-prost-build to do its Protobuffy office, you need to specify
where to find the protoc binary:
%build
export PROTOC=%{_bindir}/protoc
%cargo_build
- License ok
- Latest version packaged
- Builds in mock
- No rpmlint errors
- Conforms to Packaging Guidelines
I'll let Jared Smith approve it if it is good for him too.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1872373] Review Request: rust-prost-build - Protocol Buffers implementation for the Rust Language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872373
--- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
It should:
Requires: protobuf-compiler
to work correctly.
And the crate depending on this one should also specify
export PROTOC=%{_bindir}/protoc
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1872510] Review Request: rust-instant - Partial replacement for std::time::Instant that works on WASM too
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872510 --- Comment #1 from Josh Stone --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=50159918 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1872510] New: Review Request: rust-instant - Partial replacement for std::time::Instant that works on WASM too
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872510 Bug ID: 1872510 Summary: Review Request: rust-instant - Partial replacement for std::time::Instant that works on WASM too Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jist...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://jistone.fedorapeople.org//rust-instant.spec SRPM URL: https://jistone.fedorapeople.org//rust-instant-0.1.6-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: Partial replacement for std::time::Instant that works on WASM too. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1858639] Review Request: qt-avif-image-plugin - Qt plug-in to read/write AVIF images
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1858639
Michel Alexandre Salim changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(zebo...@gmail.com
||)
--- Comment #7 from Michel Alexandre Salim ---
Looks mostly fine, but there's a problem with directory ownership -- consider
either depending on kf5-filesystem, or if this is useful for Qt apps without
having KDE installed, just have this package own those directories too.
Also require shared-mime-info for /usr/share/mime
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
file-validate if there is such a file.
^ this seems a false positive
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License",
"Expat License BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "Expat License",
"*No copyright* Public domain", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised"
License", "ISC License". 1149 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/1858639-qt-
avif-image-plugin/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/mime/packages,
/usr/share/kservices5, /usr/share/mime,
/usr/share/kservices5/qimageioplugins
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 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: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[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
[Bug 1861887] Review Request: rocksdb - A Persistent Key-Value Store for Flash and RAM Storage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1861887
--- Comment #4 from Jonny Heggheim ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #3)
> - %{__make} → make
>
> Variable starting with __ are for rpm private use.
>
> - Add a comment above the patch to explain what it does/why it is needed
>
> - Rename your patch to have a meaningful name
>
> Patch0:
> https://patch-diff.githubusercontent.com/raw/facebook/rocksdb/pull/7187.
> patch#/0001-your-fancy-name.patch
>
> Package approved, please fix the aforementioned issue before import.
Thanks for the review, I will fix those issues before import.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1872508] Review Request: python-sphinx-hoverxref - Sphinx extension to add tooltips on cross references
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872508 Michel Alexandre Salim changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1860134 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860134 [Bug 1860134] python-hypothesis-5.29.0 is available -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1872508] New: Review Request: python-sphinx-hoverxref - Sphinx extension to add tooltips on cross references
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872508 Bug ID: 1872508 Summary: Review Request: python-sphinx-hoverxref - Sphinx extension to add tooltips on cross references Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mic...@michel-slm.name QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/python/python-sphinx-hoverxref.spec SRPM URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/python/python-sphinx-hoverxref-0.5b1-1.fc32.src.rpm Description: Sphinx extension to show a floating window (tooltips or modal dialogues) on the cross references of the documentation embedding the content of the linked section on them. With sphinx-hoverxref, you don’t need to click a link to see what’s in there. Fedora Account System Username: salimma Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=50159238 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1862796] Review Request: rust-parsec-interface - Parsec interface library to communicate using the wire protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862796
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #9 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Got this error trying to build:
error: failed to run custom build command for `parsec-interface v0.20.1
(/builddir/build/BUILD/parsec-interface-0.20.1)`
Caused by:
process didn't exit successfully:
`/builddir/build/BUILD/parsec-interface-0.20.1/target/release/build/parsec-interface-68bf9c316b4e2338/build-script-build`
(exit code: 1)
--- stderr
Error: Os { code: 2, kind: NotFound, message: "No such file or directory" }
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1872373] Review Request: rust-prost-build - Protocol Buffers implementation for the Rust Language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872373
--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
The build.rs is helpful:
//! Finds the appropriate `protoc` binary and Protobuf include directory for
this host, and outputs
//! build directives so that the main `prost-build` crate can use them.
//!
//! The following locations are checked for `protoc` in decreasing priority:
//!
//! 1. The `PROTOC` environment variable.
//! 2. The bundled `protoc`.
//! 3. The `protoc` on the `PATH`.
//!
//! If no `protoc` binary is available in these locations, the build fails.
//!
//! The following locations are checked for the Protobuf include directory in
decreasing priority:
//!
//! 1. The `PROTOC_INCLUDE` environment variable.
//! 2. The bundled Protobuf include directory.
You should BR protobuf-compiler and protobuf-devel then define
export PROTOC=%{_bindir}/protoc
export PROTOC_INCLUDE=%{_includedir}
Not sure if the devel package should also Requires: protobuf-compiler to work
correctly.
You also need to exclude third_party in the Cargo.toml
# prost-build-fix-metadata.diff
--- prost-build-0.6.1/Cargo.toml1970-01-01T00:00:00+00:00
+++ prost-build-0.6.1/Cargo.toml2020-08-25T22:22:26.646471+00:00
@@ -20,6 +20,7 @@
readme = "README.md"
license = "Apache-2.0"
repository = "https://github.com/danburkert/prost;
+exclude = ["/third-party"]
[dependencies.bytes]
version = "0.5"
And:
Source: %{crates_source}
# Initial patched metadata
# - exclude /third-party from install
Patch0: prost-build-fix-metadata.diff
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1872373] Review Request: rust-prost-build - Protocol Buffers implementation for the Rust Language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872373 --- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Also the protobuf code is BSD and we can't ship precompiled binary -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1872373] Review Request: rust-prost-build - Protocol Buffers implementation for the Rust Language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872373 --- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - You shouldn't bundle protobuf and shouldn't install it in a noarch package ll builddir/build/BUILDROOT/rust-prost-build-0.6.1-1.fc34.x86_64/usr/share/cargo/registry/prost-build-0.6.1/third-party/protobuf/ total 28472 -rw-r--r--. 1 mockbuild mock 1732 Jun 13 2019 LICENSE drwxr-xr-x. 1 mockbuild mock 12 Aug 25 23:48 include -rwxr-xr-x. 1 mockbuild mock 4974596 Jan 12 2020 protoc-linux-aarch_64 -rwxr-xr-x. 1 mockbuild mock 4684564 Aug 25 23:50 protoc-linux-x86_32 -rwxr-xr-x. 1 mockbuild mock 5068568 Aug 25 23:50 protoc-linux-x86_64 -rwxr-xr-x. 1 mockbuild mock 11773784 Jan 12 2020 protoc-osx-x86_64 -rwxr-xr-x. 1 mockbuild mock 2639360 Jan 12 2020 protoc-win32.exe -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1872373] Review Request: rust-prost-build - Protocol Buffers implementation for the Rust Language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872373 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- I've got this error at the end of the build: RPM build errors: error: Arch dependent binaries in noarch package Arch dependent binaries in noarch package -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1872372] Review Request: rust-prost-types - Protocol Buffers implementation for the Rust Language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872372 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines 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 1318814] Review Request: burp2 - Network backup / restore program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1318814 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||zebo...@gmail.com Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Last Closed|2016-07-19 20:00:57 |2020-08-25 21:40:17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1861887] Review Request: rocksdb - A Persistent Key-Value Store for Flash and RAM Storage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1861887
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- %{__make} → make
Variable starting with __ are for rpm private use.
- Add a comment above the patch to explain what it does/why it is needed
- Rename your patch to have a meaningful name
Patch0:
https://patch-diff.githubusercontent.com/raw/facebook/rocksdb/pull/7187.patch#/0001-your-fancy-name.patch
Package approved, please fix the aforementioned issue before import.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package does not use a name that already exists.
Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rocksdb
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License, Version
2", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "BSD 3-clause "New" or
"Revised" License", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later",
"Public domain", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "Apache License
2.0". 1606 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck
in /home/bob/packaging/review/rocksdb/review-rocksdb/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 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 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 use %makeinstall
[Bug 1861020] Review Request: x-tile - A GTK application to tile windows in different ways
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1861020
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Add a Requires: hicolor-icon-theme to own the icons directories
Package approved, please fix the aforementioned issue before import.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package does not use a name that already exists.
Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/x-tile
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU General Public
License v2.0 or later", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later". 49
files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/x-tile/review-x-tile/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package 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:
[-]: 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
[Bug 1871908] Review Request: python-aiohomekit - Python HomeKit client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1871908 --- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-aiohomekit -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1871908] Review Request: python-aiohomekit - Python HomeKit client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1871908 --- Comment #5 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 1862798] Review Request: rust-parsec-client - Parsec Client library for the Rust ecosystem
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862798 --- Comment #1 from Peter Robinson --- SPEC: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/rust-parsec-client.spec SRPM: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/rust-parsec-client-0.8.0-1.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 1854729] Review Request: nispor - API for network state query written in rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1854729
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(zebo...@gmail.com |
|) |
--- Comment #16 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Add comments explaining why patches are needed
Patch1: 0001-varlink-Upgrade-to-rust-varlink-11.patch
Patch2: 0002-Makefile-Better-handling-on-libdir.patch
- Please justify why you disabled the tests:
%bcond_with check
-
env SKIP_PYTHON_INSTALL=1 DESTDIR=%{buildroot} PREFIX=/usr \
LIBDIR=%{_libdir} make install
→
env SKIP_PYTHON_INSTALL=1 PREFIX=%{_prefix} \
LIBDIR=%{_libdir} %make_install
- Add license in these packages as well
%files -n python3-%{name}
%license LICENSE
%{python3_sitelib}/nispor*
%files -n rust-%{name}-devel
%license LICENSE
%{cargo_registry}/%{name}-%{version_no_tilde}/
- In order to avoid unintentional soname bump, we recommend not globbing the
major soname version:
%{_libdir}/libnispor.so.0*
- Add arch specific info for your Requires
%packagedevel
Summary:%{summary}
Requires: nispor%{?_isa} = %{?epoch:%{epoch}:}%{version}-%{release}
-Error while installing
DEBUG util.py:621: Problem: conflicting requests
DEBUG util.py:621:- nothing provides libnispor.so()(64bit) needed by
nispor-devel-0.3.0-1.fc34.x86_64
Not sure what's causing this:
rpm -q --provides -p nispor-devel-0.3.0-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm | sort -f | uniq -c
21:19:36
1 nispor-devel = 0.3.0-1.fc34
1 nispor-devel(x86-64) = 0.3.0-1.fc34
rpm -q --requires -p nispor-devel-0.3.0-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm | sort -f | uniq -c
21:20:01
1 libnispor.so()(64bit)
1 nispor(x86-64) = 0.3.0-1.fc34
1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
1 rpmlib(PayloadIsZstd) <= 5.4.18-1
It seems to me the library is badly compiled as it doesn't have a soname:
objdump -p libnispor.so.0.3.0 | grep SONAME
Could be why it isn't requiring libnispor.so()(64bit) instead of
libnispor.so.0.3.0()(64bit)
- libnispor.so.0.3.0 is not marked as 0755:
-rw-r--r--. 1 bob bob 14M Aug 25 21:16 libnispor.so.0.3.0
Use:
chmod 0755 %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/libnispor.so.0.3.0
in install, but or use the patch I sent upstream to fix the Makefile, line 87:
install -v -D -m644 $(CLIB_SO_DEV_RELEASE) \
$(DESTDIR)$(LIBDIR)/$(CLIB_SO_FULL)
Should be 0755: https://github.com/nispor/nispor/pull/13
On a side note this allow you to reenable the debuginfo, now that the library
is executable, debuginfo will be correctly generated.
- Also you should fix the Makefile to use "install -p" for files to keep the
timestamps.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1713604] Review Request: onvifviewer - Network camera viewer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1713604 --- Comment #11 from Casper Meijn --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #10) > Does the WSDL files end up up in the binary package or are they only needed > at build time? Try to answer Richard's message on the legal ML. The WSDL files are the interface specification and they are only used for the RPC interface to the ONVIF camera. This information is required to implement the ONVIF protocol correctly. The function names and structures in the WSDL will be used to generate RPC interface code. The WSDL files itself is not included in the binary, but they are used to generate code that is going into the binary. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1871908] Review Request: python-aiohomekit - Python HomeKit client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1871908 Andy Mender changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Andy Mender --- Looking good, 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 1481597] Review request: python-karborclient
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1481597 Andy Mender changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |INSUFFICIENT_DATA Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review- Last Closed||2020-08-25 19:21:03 --- Comment #14 from Andy Mender --- Closing due to inactivity. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1713604] Review Request: onvifviewer - Network camera viewer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1713604 --- Comment #10 from Robert-André Mauchin --- >The issue here (at least the only one I'm aware of) was that the >package contains WSDL files that are nominally under a license that >does not meet Fedora's policy on acceptable licenses. > >The default conclusion here should be that the package is not >acceptable for Fedora. However, if you or anyone else would like to >provide an explanation of how these files are used in this package, >that might support a different conclusion. I do not really have the >bandwidth to look into this myself. > >Richard >The WSDL files are used to generate code for parsing and creating ONVIF >messages, so they can't be removed from the package. Does the WSDL files end up up in the binary package or are they only needed at build time? Try to answer Richard's message on the legal ML. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1860082] Review Request: rust-tracing - Application-level tracing for Rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860082 Josh Stone changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-08-25 18:55:27 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1860083] Review Request: rust-tracing-futures - Utilities for instrumenting `futures` with `tracing`
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860083 Bug 1860083 depends on bug 1860082, which changed state. Bug 1860082 Summary: Review Request: rust-tracing - Application-level tracing for Rust https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860082 What|Removed |Added Status|POST|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 1860083] Review Request: rust-tracing-futures - Utilities for instrumenting `futures` with `tracing`
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860083 Josh Stone changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-08-25 18:55:40 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1860082] Review Request: rust-tracing - Application-level tracing for Rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860082 Bug 1860082 depends on bug 1860081, which changed state. Bug 1860081 Summary: Review Request: rust-tracing-core - Core primitives for application-level tracing https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860081 What|Removed |Added Status|POST|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 1860081] Review Request: rust-tracing-core - Core primitives for application-level tracing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860081 Josh Stone changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-08-25 18:55:13 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1860079] Review Request: rust-tracing-attributes - Procedural macro attributes for automatically instrumenting functions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860079 Josh Stone changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-08-25 18:55:03 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1713604] Review Request: onvifviewer - Network camera viewer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1713604 --- Comment #9 from Casper Meijn --- (In reply to Bryan Sutula from comment #8) > "Open Source" licenses need the permission to modify the work and create > derivative works. That's why these types of licenses aren't considered > "open source". > > Just a thought...as you review the specific files and licenses, if these > "non-open-source" licenses apply only to documents, could you simply remove > the document files from the package? The WSDL files are used to generate code for parsing and creating ONVIF messages, so they can't be removed from the package. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1713604] Review Request: onvifviewer - Network camera viewer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1713604 Bryan Sutula changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bsut...@redhat.com --- Comment #8 from Bryan Sutula --- "Open Source" licenses need the permission to modify the work and create derivative works. That's why these types of licenses aren't considered "open source". Just a thought...as you review the specific files and licenses, if these "non-open-source" licenses apply only to documents, could you simply remove the document files from the package? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1713604] Review Request: onvifviewer - Network camera viewer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1713604 --- Comment #7 from Ben Cotton --- Thanks! I'll follow up with Legal and see if I can figure out what the specific issue is. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1860082] Review Request: rust-tracing - Application-level tracing for Rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860082 --- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-tracing -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1713604] Review Request: onvifviewer - Network camera viewer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1713604 Casper Meijn changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(cas...@meijn.net) | --- Comment #6 from Casper Meijn --- It is about the files in 3rdparty/wsdl directory. These files are come from different domains/companies and therefore they have different licenses, but in my non-legal view they are similar. I could compile a list of these licenses if that is useful. Following is an example of these licenses from 3rdparty/wsdl/www.onvif.org/ver10/device/wsdl/devicemgmt.wsdl: > Copyright (c) 2008-2017 by ONVIF: Open Network Video Interface Forum. All > rights reserved. > > Recipients of this document may copy, distribute, publish, or display this > document so long as this copyright notice, license and disclaimer are > retained with all copies of the document. No license is granted to modify > this document. > > THIS DOCUMENT IS PROVIDED "AS IS," AND THE CORPORATION AND ITS MEMBERS AND > THEIR AFFILIATES, MAKE NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, > INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A > PARTICULAR PURPOSE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, OR TITLE; THAT THE CONTENTS OF THIS > DOCUMENT ARE SUITABLE FOR ANY PURPOSE; OR THAT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH > CONTENTS WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY PATENTS, COPYRIGHTS, TRADEMARKS OR OTHER > RIGHTS. > IN NO EVENT WILL THE CORPORATION OR ITS MEMBERS OR THEIR AFFILIATES BE LIABLE > FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, PUNITIVE OR CONSEQUENTIAL > DAMAGES, ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO ANY USE OR DISTRIBUTION OF THIS > DOCUMENT, WHETHER OR NOT (1) THE CORPORATION, MEMBERS OR THEIR AFFILIATES > HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES, OR (2) SUCH DAMAGES > WERE REASONABLY FORESEEABLE, AND ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO ANY USE OR > DISTRIBUTION OF THIS DOCUMENT. THE FOREGOING DISCLAIMER AND LIMITATION ON > LIABILITY DO NOT APPLY TO, INVALIDATE, OR LIMIT REPRESENTATIONS AND > WARRANTIES MADE BY THE MEMBERS AND THEIR RESPECTIVE AFFILIATES TO THE > CORPORATION AND OTHER MEMBERS IN CERTAIN WRITTEN POLICIES OF THE CORPORATION. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1860083] Review Request: rust-tracing-futures - Utilities for instrumenting `futures` with `tracing`
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860083 --- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-tracing-futures -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1860081] Review Request: rust-tracing-core - Core primitives for application-level tracing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860081 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-tracing-core -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1860079] Review Request: rust-tracing-attributes - Procedural macro attributes for automatically instrumenting functions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860079 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-tracing-attributes -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1713604] Review Request: onvifviewer - Network camera viewer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1713604 Ben Cotton changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bcot...@redhat.com Flags||needinfo?(cas...@meijn.net) --- Comment #5 from Ben Cotton --- > * The source files related to the ONVIF protocol may be distributed, but not > modified. Can you clarify which files you're talking about? Looking through the GitLab repo, I only see GPL and CC 0 licenses in use. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1860792] Review Request: rust-rtnetlink - The rtnetlink interface for rust netlink binding
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860792 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||zebo...@gmail.com Depends On||1860787, 1860784 Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - Ask upstream to include a LICENSE in the crate. Add the link to the bug request in the SPEC above license - Bump to 0.4.0 - License ok - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines Package approved. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860784 [Bug 1860784] Review Request: rust-netlink-packet-route - rust binding for netlink route protocol https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860787 [Bug 1860787] Review Request: rust-netlink-proto - Netlink protocol constants for rust netlink binding -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1860784] Review Request: rust-netlink-packet-route - rust binding for netlink route protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860784 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1860792 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860792 [Bug 1860792] Review Request: rust-rtnetlink - The rtnetlink interface for rust netlink binding -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1860787] Review Request: rust-netlink-proto - Netlink protocol constants for rust netlink binding
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860787 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1860792 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860792 [Bug 1860792] Review Request: rust-rtnetlink - The rtnetlink interface for rust netlink binding -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1872427] Review Request: ec2-hibinit-agent - support for hibernation for Amazon ec2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872427 David Duncan changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cxia...@amazon.com, ||laure...@amazon.com, ||mabo...@amazon.com, ||tum...@redhat.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1872427] New: Review Request: ec2-hibinit-agent - support for hibernation for Amazon ec2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872427 Bug ID: 1872427 Summary: Review Request: ec2-hibinit-agent - support for hibernation for Amazon ec2 Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: davd...@amazon.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://davdunc.fedorapeople.org/ec2-hibinit-agent.spec SRPM URL: https://davdunc.fedorapeople.org/ec2-hibinit-agent-1.0.2-3.amzn2.src.rpm Description: Hibernation setup utility for Amazon EC2 Fedora Account System Username: davdunc -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1860781] Review Request: rust-netlink-packet-core - core package for netlink rust binding
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860781 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1860787 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860787 [Bug 1860787] Review Request: rust-netlink-proto - Netlink protocol constants for rust netlink binding -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1860790] Review Request: rust-netlink-sys - The system tools(sockets, aync, etc) for rust binding
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860790 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1860787 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860787 [Bug 1860787] Review Request: rust-netlink-proto - Netlink protocol constants for rust netlink binding -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1860787] Review Request: rust-netlink-proto - Netlink protocol constants for rust netlink binding
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860787 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||zebo...@gmail.com Depends On||1860790, 1860781 Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - Ask upstream to include a LICENSE in the crate. Add the link to the bug request in the SPEC above license - Bump to 0.4.1 - License ok - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines Package approved. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860781 [Bug 1860781] Review Request: rust-netlink-packet-core - core package for netlink rust binding https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860790 [Bug 1860790] Review Request: rust-netlink-sys - The system tools(sockets, aync, etc) for rust binding -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1860790] Review Request: rust-netlink-sys - The system tools(sockets, aync, etc) for rust binding
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860790 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - Ask upstream to include a LICENSE in the crate. Add the link to the bug request in the SPEC above license - Bump to 0.4.0 - License ok - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines 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 1860784] Review Request: rust-netlink-packet-route - rust binding for netlink route protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860784 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||zebo...@gmail.com Depends On||1860785, 1860781 Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - Ask upstream to include a LICENSE in the crate. Add the link to the bug request in the SPEC above license - Bump to 0.4.0 - License ok - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines Package approved. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860781 [Bug 1860781] Review Request: rust-netlink-packet-core - core package for netlink rust binding https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860785 [Bug 1860785] Review Request: rust-netlink-packet-utils - Utils of rust netlink binding -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1860781] Review Request: rust-netlink-packet-core - core package for netlink rust binding
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860781 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1860784 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860784 [Bug 1860784] Review Request: rust-netlink-packet-route - rust binding for netlink route protocol -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1860785] Review Request: rust-netlink-packet-utils - Utils of rust netlink binding
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860785 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1860784 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860784 [Bug 1860784] Review Request: rust-netlink-packet-route - rust binding for netlink route protocol -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1860781] Review Request: rust-netlink-packet-core - core package for netlink rust binding
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860781 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines 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 1860785] Review Request: rust-netlink-packet-utils - Utils of rust netlink binding
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860785 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - Ask upstream to include a LICENSE in the crate. Add the link to the bug request in the SPEC above license - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines 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 1860785] Review Request: rust-netlink-packet-utils - Utils of rust netlink binding
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860785 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1860781 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860781 [Bug 1860781] Review Request: rust-netlink-packet-core - core package for netlink rust binding -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1860781] Review Request: rust-netlink-packet-core - core package for netlink rust binding
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860781 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zebo...@gmail.com Depends On||1860785 --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - Ask upstream to include a LICENSE in the crate. Add the link to the bug request in the SPEC above license Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860785 [Bug 1860785] Review Request: rust-netlink-packet-utils - Utils of rust netlink binding -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1860647] Review Request: hexchat-autoaway - HexChat plugin that automatically mark you away
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860647
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Consider giving a more explicit name to your patch (by appending
#/name-of-the-patch.patch for example)
- Consider adding a comment above the patch to explain what it is doing.
- Please use the new CMake out of source building:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/CMake_to_do_out-of-source_builds
BuildRequires: cmake
[…]
%build
%{cmake}
%cmake_build
%install
%cmake_install
(Use cmake3 if you want EPEL7 compatibility, otherwise just use %cmake)
- Add an explicit BR for cmake
BuildRequires: cmake
- Add an explicit BR for gcc-c++
BuildRequires: gcc-c++
- Don't mix tabs and spaces:
hexchat-autoaway.src:1: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab:
line 1)
i.e. no tabs on line 1 and line 11.
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.
[!]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[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", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or
later". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck
in /home/bob/packaging/review/hexchat-autoaway/review-hexchat-
autoaway/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package 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 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
[Bug 1853081] Review Request: mlxbf-bfscripts - Helper scripts for Mellanox BlueField systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1853081
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Not needed
%build
exit 0
- This is not needed, it is already the default:
%attr(644, root, root)
Package approved, please fix the aforementioned issues before import.
Maybe needinfo your reviewers in the dependencies, otherwise you won't be able
to install it.
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", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License",
"BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License". 28 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/mlxbf-bfscripts/review-mlxbf-
bfscripts/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: 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]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and
systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files.
Note: Systemd service file(s) in mlxbf-bfscripts
[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 all supported
[Bug 1868992] Review Request: jakarta-server-pages - Jakarta Server Pages (JSP)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868992 Fabio Valentini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Fixed In Version||jakarta-server-pages-2.3.6- ||1.fc33 Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2020-08-25 15:52:43 --- Comment #10 from Fabio Valentini --- Built for rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1600830 And for fedora 33: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1600831 Looks like I lost the race against the beta freeze. So I'll submit an update and a buildroot override for the f33 build. Update: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-fdedbb4dbb Buildroot override: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/overrides/jakarta-server-pages-2.3.6-1.fc33 I will proceed with retiring glassfish-jsp and glassfish-jsp-api. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1713604] Review Request: onvifviewer - Network camera viewer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1713604 --- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin --- I sent a mail to Legal to see if they can give a definitive opinion. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1860064] Review Request: libglib-testing - GLib-based test library and harness
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860064
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
URL:https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/pwithnall/libglib-testing
→
URL:https://gitlab.gnome.org/pwithnall/libglib-testing
- Not needed anymore except EPEL7:
%ldconfig_scriptlets
- In order to avoid unintentional soname bump, we recommend not globing the
major soname version:
%{_libdir}/libglib-testing-0.so.0*
- Split this at 80 characters as the package name extends by that:
%description devel
This package contains the pkg-config file and development headers
for %{name}.
- All minor things, so this package is approved but don't forget to fix the
aforementioned issues before import.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU Lesser General Public License,
Version 2.1", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License", "GNU
Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later". 12 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/libglib-testing/review-libglib-
testing/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[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 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 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
[Bug 1860083] Review Request: rust-tracing-futures - Utilities for instrumenting `futures` with `tracing`
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860083 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines 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 1862796] Review Request: rust-parsec-interface - Parsec interface library to communicate using the wire protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862796 --- Comment #8 from Peter Robinson --- Updated: SPEC: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/rust-parsec-interface.spec SRPM: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/rust-parsec-interface-0.19.0-3.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 1872372] Review Request: rust-prost-types - Protocol Buffers implementation for the Rust Language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872372 Peter Robinson changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1872373 (rust-prost-build) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872373 [Bug 1872373] Review Request: rust-prost-build - Protocol Buffers implementation for the Rust Language -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1872373] Review Request: rust-prost-build - Protocol Buffers implementation for the Rust Language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872373 Peter Robinson changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1862796 ||(rust-parsec-interface) Depends On||1872372 (rust-prost-types) Alias||rust-prost-build Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862796 [Bug 1862796] Review Request: rust-parsec-interface - Parsec interface library to communicate using the wire protocol https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872372 [Bug 1872372] Review Request: rust-prost-types - Protocol Buffers implementation for the Rust Language -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1862796] Review Request: rust-parsec-interface - Parsec interface library to communicate using the wire protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862796 Peter Robinson changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1872373 (rust-prost-build) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872373 [Bug 1872373] Review Request: rust-prost-build - Protocol Buffers implementation for the Rust Language -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1872373] New: Review Request: rust-prost-build - Protocol Buffers implementation for the Rust Language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872373 Bug ID: 1872373 Summary: Review Request: rust-prost-build - Protocol Buffers implementation for the Rust Language Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: pbrobin...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora SPEC: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/rust-prost-build.spec SRPM: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/rust-prost-build-0.6.1-1.fc32.src.rpm Description: Protocol Buffers implementation for the Rust Language FAS: pbrobinson -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1872372] New: Review Request: rust-prost-types - Protocol Buffers implementation for the Rust Language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872372 Bug ID: 1872372 Summary: Review Request: rust-prost-types - Protocol Buffers implementation for the Rust Language Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: pbrobin...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora SPEC: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/rust-prost-types.spec SRPM: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/rust-prost-types-0.6.1-1.fc32.src.rpm Description: Protocol Buffers implementation for the Rust Language FAS: pbrobinson koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=50141887 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1872372] Review Request: rust-prost-types - Protocol Buffers implementation for the Rust Language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872372 Peter Robinson changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||rust-prost-types Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1860082] Review Request: rust-tracing - Application-level tracing for Rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860082 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - Bump to 0.1.19 - License ok - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines 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 1860081] Review Request: rust-tracing-core - Core primitives for application-level tracing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860081 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - Bump to 0.1.15 - License ok - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines 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 1860079] Review Request: rust-tracing-attributes - Procedural macro attributes for automatically instrumenting functions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860079 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - Bump to 1.1.11 - License ok - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines 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 1157162] Review Request: badvpn - Peer-to-peer VPN solution
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1157162
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- make %{?_smp_mflags} → %cmake_build
- Not needed
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
- %make_install → %cmake_install
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/CMake_to_do_out-of-source_builds for
the out of source builds.
- Bump to 1.999.130
- Add a BR against gcc
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised"
License", "*No copyright* BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License",
"*No copyright* [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or
later", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v2.0 or later",
"*No copyright* Public domain", "BSD 4-clause "Original" or "Old"
License", "NTP License". 360 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/badvpn/review-
badvpn/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: 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]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: 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,
[Bug 1872353] New: Review Request: php-laminas-config3 - Laminas Framework Config component v3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872353 Bug ID: 1872353 Summary: Review Request: php-laminas-config3 - Laminas Framework Config component v3 Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: fed...@famillecollet.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://git.remirepo.net/cgit/rpms/php/laminas/php-laminas-config3.git/plain/php-laminas-config3.spec?id=ecb87bb329f8aca3cfb7e09ab6a60205bd3c93c5 SRPM URL: https://rpms.remirepo.net/SRPMS/php-laminas-config3-3.4.0-1.remi.src.rpm Description: applications. It provides a nested object property-based user interface for accessing this configuration data within application code. The configuration data may come from a variety of media supporting hierarchical data storage. Documentation: https://docs.laminas.dev/laminas-config/ Fedora Account System Username: remi -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1862796] Review Request: rust-parsec-interface - Parsec interface library to communicate using the wire protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862796 Bug 1862796 depends on bug 1872273, which changed state. Bug 1872273 Summary: Review Request: rust-derive_arbitrary - Derives arbitrary traits https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872273 What|Removed |Added Status|POST|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 1872273] Review Request: rust-derive_arbitrary - Derives arbitrary traits
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872273 Peter Robinson changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-08-25 14:15:59 -- 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 1872338] New: Review Request: php-brick-varexporter - A powerful alternative to var_export
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872338 Bug ID: 1872338 Summary: Review Request: php-brick-varexporter - A powerful alternative to var_export Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: fed...@famillecollet.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://git.remirepo.net/cgit/rpms/php/brick/php-brick-varexporter.git/plain/php-brick-varexporter.spec?id=6c81346d03ea2caca097acd30647894c489f9b5f SRPM URL: https://rpms.remirepo.net/SRPMS/php-brick-varexporter-0.3.2-1.remi.src.rpm Description: This library aims to provide a prettier, safer, and powerful alternative to var_export(). The output is valid and standalone PHP code, that does not depend on the brick/varexporter library. Autoloader: /usr/share/php/Brick/VarExporter/autoload.php Fedora Account System Username: remi -- New dependency of Laminas framework -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1872273] Review Request: rust-derive_arbitrary - Derives arbitrary traits
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872273 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-derive_arbitrary -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1868992] Review Request: jakarta-server-pages - Jakarta Server Pages (JSP)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868992 --- Comment #9 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/jakarta-server-pages -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1868853] Review Request: fcitx5-configtool - Configuration tools used by fcitx5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868853 --- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fcitx5-configtool -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1872291] Review Request: rust-dbus-codegen - Binary crate to generate Rust code from XML introspection data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872291 Peter Robinson changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1859994 (PARSEC) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1859994 [Bug 1859994] Support PARSEC -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1872296] Review Request: rust-dbus-crossroads - Framework for writing D-Bus method handlers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872296 Peter Robinson changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1859994 (PARSEC) Alias||rust-dbus-crossroads Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1859994 [Bug 1859994] Support PARSEC -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1872296] New: Review Request: rust-dbus-crossroads - Framework for writing D-Bus method handlers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872296 Bug ID: 1872296 Summary: Review Request: rust-dbus-crossroads - Framework for writing D-Bus method handlers Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: pbrobin...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora SPEC: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/rust-dbus-crossroads.spec SRPM: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/rust-dbus-crossroads-0.2.1-1.fc32.src.rpm Description: Framework for writing D-Bus method handlers FAS: pbrobinson koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=50133540 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1872291] New: Review Request: rust-dbus-codegen - Binary crate to generate Rust code from XML introspection data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872291 Bug ID: 1872291 Summary: Review Request: rust-dbus-codegen - Binary crate to generate Rust code from XML introspection data Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: pbrobin...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora SPEC: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/rust-dbus-codegen.spec SRPM: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/rust-dbus-codegen-0.5.0-1.fc32.src.rpm Description: Binary crate to generate Rust code from XML introspection data FAS: pbrobinson koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=50133417 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1862796] Review Request: rust-parsec-interface - Parsec interface library to communicate using the wire protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862796 --- Comment #7 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- The other review is approved. Jared, the ball is in your court 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 1872273] Review Request: rust-derive_arbitrary - Derives arbitrary traits
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872273 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbys...@in.waw.pl Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- + package name is OK - not latest version: 0.4.6 is upstream + license is acceptable for Fedora (MIT or ASL2.0) + license is specified correctly + builds and installs OK + spec file generated using rust2rpm, so the general structure is OK rpmlint: rust-derive_arbitrary-devel.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://crates.io/crates/derive_arbitrary HTTP Error 404: Not Found rust-derive_arbitrary-devel.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/cargo/registry/derive_arbitrary-0.4.5/.cargo-checksum.json rust-derive_arbitrary+default-devel.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://crates.io/crates/derive_arbitrary HTTP Error 404: Not Found rust-derive_arbitrary+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. All false positives. Package is 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 1862796] Review Request: rust-parsec-interface - Parsec interface library to communicate using the wire protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862796 --- Comment #6 from Peter Robinson --- (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #5) > What's the status here? Literally just added the extra review, see added dep. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1868992] Review Request: jakarta-server-pages - Jakarta Server Pages (JSP)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868992 --- Comment #8 from Fabio Valentini --- Fixed license tag, and bumped the obsoleted versions for both glassfish-jsp and glassfish-jsp by 1. Reported ASL 2.0 snafu also upstream: https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jsp-api/issues/180 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 1868992] Review Request: jakarta-server-pages - Jakarta Server Pages (JSP)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868992
--- Comment #7 from Mat Booth ---
Oh cripes I just spotted one more minor problem:
On a fully up to date F33 system, the obsoletes are off by one:
$ rpm -q glassfish-jsp{,-api}
glassfish-jsp-2.3.4-8.fc33.noarch
glassfish-jsp-api-2.3.3-5.fc33.noarch
$ rpm -qp --obsoletes ./jakarta-server-pages-2.3.6-1.fc33.noarch.rpm
glassfish-jsp < 2.3.4-8
$ rpm -qp --obsoletes ./jakarta-server-pages-api-2.3.6-1.fc33.noarch.rpm
glassfish-jsp-api < 2.3.3-5
Please bump the release component of the obsoletes tags
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1862796] Review Request: rust-parsec-interface - Parsec interface library to communicate using the wire protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862796 Peter Robinson changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1872273 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872273 [Bug 1872273] Review Request: rust-derive_arbitrary - Derives arbitrary traits -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1872273] Review Request: rust-derive_arbitrary - Derives arbitrary traits
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872273 Peter Robinson changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zebo...@gmail.com Blocks||1862796 ||(rust-parsec-interface) Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value --- Comment #1 from Peter Robinson --- This actually fixes an unrelated dependency issue that's blocking my parsece work, not sure why Robert-André never packaged it. DEBUG util.py:621: Problem: conflicting requests DEBUG util.py:621:- nothing provides crate(derive_arbitrary/default) = 0.4.5 needed by rust-arbitrary+derive-devel-0.4.5-3.fc34.noarch Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862796 [Bug 1862796] Review Request: rust-parsec-interface - Parsec interface library to communicate using the wire protocol -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1872273] New: Review Request: rust-derive_arbitrary - Derives arbitrary traits
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872273 Bug ID: 1872273 Summary: Review Request: rust-derive_arbitrary - Derives arbitrary traits Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: pbrobin...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora SPEC: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/rust-derive_arbitrary.spec SRPM: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/rust-derive_arbitrary-0.4.5-1.fc32.src.rpm Description: Derives arbitrary traits FAS: pbrobinson koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=50128824 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1862796] Review Request: rust-parsec-interface - Parsec interface library to communicate using the wire protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862796 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl --- Comment #5 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- What's the status 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 1868992] Review Request: jakarta-server-pages - Jakarta Server Pages (JSP)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868992 Mat Booth changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Mat Booth --- (In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #5) > Downgraded to 2.3.6, enabled JDTJavaCompiler (and AntJavaCompiler while I > was at it). > > - Patch1 is adapted from glassfish-jsp but rebased for 2.3.6 with additional > enablement of AntJavaCompiler. > - Patch2 is copied from glassfish-jsp. > > Spec URL: > https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/packages/jakarta-server-pages.spec > SRPM URL: > https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/packages/jakarta-server-pages-2.3.6-1. > fc32.src.rpm Great stuff I built Eclipse against this version and it all works fine. There is just the license quibble (issue 1 in comment 2 above) remaining to be addressed. Assuming you address that, then this package is 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
