[Bug 1875225] Review Request: dhall-json - Convert between Dhall and JSON or YAML
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875225 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-bf7b04b867 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-bf7b04b867 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-bf7b04b867 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1875326] Review Request: ghc-req - Easy-to-use, type-safe, expandable, high-level HTTP client library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875326 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-e4656fdc99 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-e4656fdc99 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-e4656fdc99 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1874381] Review Request: ghc-openssl-streams - OpenSSL network support for io-streams
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1874381 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-ddb728f898 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-ddb728f898 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-ddb728f898 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1875389] Review Request: ormolu - A formatter for Haskell source code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875389 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-211038ee34 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-211038ee34 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-211038ee34 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1867347] Review Request: ghc-modern-uri - Modern library for working with URIs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1867347 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-e4656fdc99 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-e4656fdc99 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-e4656fdc99 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1874500] Review Request: ghc-ghc-lib-parser - The GHC API, decoupled from GHC versions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1874500 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-211038ee34 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-211038ee34 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-211038ee34 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1874507] Review Request: ghc-aeson-yaml - Output any Aeson value as YAML (pure Haskell library)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1874507 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-bf7b04b867 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-bf7b04b867 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-bf7b04b867 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1874376] Review Request: ghc-http-common - Common types for HTTP clients and servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1874376 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-ddb728f898 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-ddb728f898 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-ddb728f898 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1874703] Review Request: ghc-http-streams - An HTTP client using io-streams
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1874703 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-ddb728f898 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-ddb728f898 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-ddb728f898 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1871123] Review Request: toot - CLI and TUI tool for interacting with Mastodon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1871123 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-119eeacdcb has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1882458] Review Request: python-upnpy - Lightweight UPnP client library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1882458 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-10-04 00:15:26 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-4f9ab86600 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1883447] Review Request: R-flexiblas - FlexiBLAS API Interface for R
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1883447 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-10-04 00:15:02 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-a555e29c76 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1882909] Review Request: python-rak811 - Interface for RAK811 LoRa module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1882909 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-10-04 00:15:21 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-40256b3e21 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1877811] Review Request: python-pyarlo - Python library to interact with Netgear Arlo cameras
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877811 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-10-04 00:14:48 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-5ee9be8291 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1882650] Review Request: mqtt-randompub - Tool for generating MQTT messages on various topics
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1882650 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-10-04 00:15:13 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-9ea5d1f0ee has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1884077] Review Request: python-multipart - A streaming multipart parser for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884077 --- Comment #3 from Itamar Reis Peixoto --- Spec URL: https://itamarjp.fedorapeople.org/review/python-python-multipart.spec SRPM URL: https://itamarjp.fedorapeople.org/review/python-python-multipart-0.0.5-1.fc33.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1884077] Review Request: python-multipart - A streaming multipart parser for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884077 Itamar Reis Peixoto changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |python-multipart -A |python-multipart - A |streaming multipart parser |streaming multipart parser |for Python |for Python -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1884077] Review Request: python-multipart -A streaming multipart parser for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884077 Itamar Reis Peixoto changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |python-python-multipart -A |python-multipart -A |streaming multipart parser |streaming multipart parser |for Python |for Python -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1884063] Review Request: python-fastapi - FastAPI framework, high performance, easy to learn, fast to code, ready for production
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884063 --- Comment #2 from Itamar Reis Peixoto --- Spec URL: https://itamarjp.fedorapeople.org/review/python-fastapi.spec SRPM URL: https://itamarjp.fedorapeople.org/review/python-fastapi-0.61.1-1.fc33.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1884065] Review Request: python-starlette - The little ASGI library that shines
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884065 --- Comment #2 from Itamar Reis Peixoto --- Spec URL: https://itamarjp.fedorapeople.org/review/python-starlette.spec SRPM URL: https://itamarjp.fedorapeople.org/review/python-starlette-0.13.8-1.fc33.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1874500] Review Request: ghc-ghc-lib-parser - The GHC API, decoupled from GHC versions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1874500 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-211038ee34 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-211038ee34 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1875389] Review Request: ormolu - A formatter for Haskell source code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875389 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-211038ee34 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-211038ee34 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1884077] Review Request: python-python-multipart -A streaming multipart parser for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884077 --- Comment #2 from Itamar Reis Peixoto --- > Any chance to call the package simply "python-multipart" instead of > "python-python-multipart"? https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_python_source_package_naming > The License tag for the Apache license in this case is "ASL 2.0" since OK > The version requirement on python3-six >= 1.4 is not needed, since Fedora 32 OK > Could you re-enable the tests or give a specific reason why the tests are > disabled? tests enabled. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1875225] Review Request: dhall-json - Convert between Dhall and JSON or YAML
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875225 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-bf7b04b867 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-bf7b04b867 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1884943] New: Review Request: libecpint - Efficient evaluation of integrals over ab initio effective core potentials
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884943 Bug ID: 1884943 Summary: Review Request: libecpint - Efficient evaluation of integrals over ab initio effective core potentials Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jungh...@votca.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://junghans.fedorapeople.org/libecpint.spec SRPM URL: https://junghans.fedorapeople.org/libecpint-1.0.2-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: Libecpint is a C++ library for the efficient evaluation of integrals over ab initio effective core potentials, using a mixture of generated, recursive code and Gauss-Chebyshev quadrature. It is designed to be standalone and generic. Fedora Account System Username: junghans -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1884943] Review Request: libecpint - Efficient evaluation of integrals over ab initio effective core potentials
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884943 Christoph Junghans changed: What|Removed |Added Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value --- Comment #1 from Christoph Junghans --- TaskID: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=52711831 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1884922] Review Request: pylibgamerzilla - Python integration with gamerzilla library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884922 --- Comment #4 from Dennis Payne --- Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dulsi/pylibgamerzilla/master/pylibgamerzilla.spec SRPM URL: http://identicalsoftware.com/gamerzilla/pylibgamerzilla-0.0.1-3.fc32.src.rpm Hopefully this one builds. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1884063] Review Request: python-fastapi - FastAPI framework, high performance, easy to learn, fast to code, ready for production
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884063
--- Comment #1 from Andy Mender ---
COPR project with python-fastapi + dependencies:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/andymenderunix/python-fastapi
> License:None
The license is actually MIT.
> %check
> #disable tests for now (missing deps)
> ##%{__python3} setup.py test
Could you indicate in the comment which dependencies are missing?
rpmlint reported some extra items (covered in the full review)
Full review below:
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
Note: Using prebuilt packages
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License", "*No copyright* Expat
License". 720 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/python-fastapi/copr-
build-1693705/review-python-fastapi/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
[?]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Review: builds in COPR.
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]
[Bug 1884922] Review Request: pylibgamerzilla - Python integration with gamerzilla library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884922 --- Comment #3 from Andy Mender --- Koji build from new SRPM: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=52706363 Unfortunately, it still fails. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1884922] Review Request: pylibgamerzilla - Python integration with gamerzilla library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884922 --- Comment #2 from Dennis Payne --- Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dulsi/pylibgamerzilla/master/pylibgamerzilla.spec SRPM URL: http://identicalsoftware.com/gamerzilla/pylibgamerzilla-0.0.1-2.fc32.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1884065] Review Request: python-starlette - The little ASGI library that shines
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884065
--- Comment #1 from Andy Mender ---
Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=52704988
Upstream has tests, but you would need to switch to GitHub release tarballs in
Source0 to take advantage of that:
https://github.com/encode/starlette/tree/master/tests
Looks okay otherwise. Full review below:
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[ ]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
Note: Using prebuilt packages
[ ]: 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: "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "Unknown or
generated". 37 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/python-starlette/python-
starlette/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
[?]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package 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 must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Review: Tested in Koji.
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgv
[Bug 1884063] Review Request: python-fastapi - FastAPI framework, high performance, easy to learn, fast to code, ready for production
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884063 Andy Mender changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||andymenderu...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|andymenderu...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1884065] Review Request: python-starlette - The little ASGI library that shines
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884065 Andy Mender changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||andymenderu...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|andymenderu...@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1884077] Review Request: python-python-multipart -A streaming multipart parser for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884077
--- Comment #1 from Andy Mender ---
Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=52704105
> %global pypi_name python-multipart
> %global srcname python-multipart
>
> Name: python-%{srcname}
Any chance to call the package simply "python-multipart" instead of
"python-python-multipart"?
> License:Apache
The License tag for the Apache license in this case is "ASL 2.0" since that's
what the upstream uses:
https://github.com/andrew-d/python-multipart/blob/master/LICENSE.txt
> BuildRequires: python3dist(setuptools)
> BuildRequires: python3dist(six) >= 1.4
The version requirement on python3-six >= 1.4 is not needed, since Fedora 32
already ships python3-six version 1.14.
> %check
> #disable tests for now
> ##%{__python3} setup.py test
Could you re-enable the tests or give a specific reason why the tests are
disabled?
Full review below:
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
Note: python3-pytest4 is deprecated, you must not depend on it.
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/deprecating-packages/
Review: please ignore this warning.
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
Note: Using prebuilt packages
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Apache License 2.0", "Unknown or generated". 61 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/python-python-multipart/python-python-
multipart/licensecheck.txt
Review: mentioned in an earlier comment.
[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
[?]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
pac
[Bug 1884110] Review Request: booksorg - Books Organizer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884110
--- Comment #1 from Andy Mender ---
Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=52703792
> Summary: Books Organizer
> URL: https://github.com/%{owner}/%{name}
> Source0:
> https://github.com/%{owner}/%{name}/archive/%{commit}/%{name}-%{commit}.tar.gz
You can use the URL inside Source0 like this to make it simpler:
%{url}/archive/%{commit}/%{name}-%{commit}.tar.gz
> BuildRequires: gcc-c++
> #BuildRequires: qt5-devel
Any reason qt5-devel is commented out? If it's not needed, could you remove it?
> # NOTE: It would be *awesome* if this file was maintained by the upstream
> # project, translated and installed into the right place during `make
> install`.
Probably a good idea to submit a PR to upstream then :).
> mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/appdata
> cat > $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/appdata/%{name}.appdata.xml < %files
> %{_bindir}/%{name}
> %{_datadir}/applications/%{name}.desktop
> %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps/%{name}.svg
> %{_datadir}/appdata/%{name}.appdata.xml
No license file added and I see upstream doesn't have one either in the source
tree. Could you please ask upstream to include a license file in their
repository?
The full review is below:
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_macros
- Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
file-validate if there is such a file.
Please add this step to the %install block. More info here:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_desktop_files
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
Note: Using prebuilt packages
Review: Tested in Koji.
[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]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "GPL (v3)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL
(v3.0)". 103 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in
/home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/booksorg/booksorg/licensecheck.txt
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
Review: no license file installed. Please add a license file under
the %files block with the %license macro.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners:
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable
Review: likely missing Requires on hicolor-icon-theme
[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
[?]: 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.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at th
[Bug 1859627] Review Request: arm-none-eabi-gdb - GDB for (remote) debugging ARM bare-metal targets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1859627 --- Comment #12 from Austin Chang --- I found that I haven't finish the part of the prefix for binaries yet. Below is the current version, but I will keep working on the one with correct prefix if that is really needed. SPEC: https://people.cs.nctu.edu.tw/~austin/rpmbuild/202010040006/arm-none-eabi-gdb.spec SRPM: https://people.cs.nctu.edu.tw/~austin/rpmbuild/202010040006/arm-none-eabi-gdb-9.2-1.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 1884077] Review Request: python-python-multipart -A streaming multipart parser for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884077 Andy Mender changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||andymenderu...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|andymenderu...@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1884110] Review Request: booksorg - Books Organizer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884110 Andy Mender changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||andymenderu...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|andymenderu...@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1884922] Review Request: pylibgamerzilla - Python integration with gamerzilla library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884922 --- Comment #1 from Andy Mender --- Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=52703660 The build fails on all supported architectures with cmake errors related to swig. Could you have a look at them? CMake Error at /usr/share/cmake/Modules/FindPkgConfig.cmake:797 (message): None of the required 'gamerzilla' found Call Stack (most recent call first): CMakeLists.txt:13 (PKG_SEARCH_MODULE) CMake Deprecation Warning at /usr/share/cmake/Modules/UseSWIG.cmake:593 (message): SWIG_ADD_MODULE is deprecated. Use SWIG_ADD_LIBRARY instead. Call Stack (most recent call first): CMakeLists.txt:22 (SWIG_ADD_MODULE) -- Configuring incomplete, errors occurred! See also "/builddir/build/BUILD/pylibgamerzilla-0.0.1/x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu/CMakeFiles/CMakeOutput.log". The SPEC file looks okay in general, but doesn't build in a Rawhide/F34 mock environment. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1884922] Review Request: pylibgamerzilla - Python integration with gamerzilla library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884922 Andy Mender changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||andymenderu...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|andymenderu...@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1884922] New: Review Request: pylibgamerzilla - Python integration with gamerzilla library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884922 Bug ID: 1884922 Summary: Review Request: pylibgamerzilla - Python integration with gamerzilla library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: du...@identicalsoftware.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dulsi/pylibgamerzilla/master/pylibgamerzilla.spec SRPM URL: http://identicalsoftware.com/gamerzilla/pylibgamerzilla-0.0.1-1.fc32.src.rpm Description: Python interface to the Gamerzilla trophy/achievement system for games. It allows you display achievements from python games online. Fedora Account System Username: dulsi -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1884906] Review Request: python-crashtest - Manage Python errors with ease
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884906 --- Comment #4 from Fabio Valentini --- Great, 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 1884906] Review Request: python-crashtest - Manage Python errors with ease
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884906 Andy Mender changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Andy Mender --- Fair enough. 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 1884598] Review Request: clitest - Command Line Tester
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884598
Andy Mender changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Andy Mender ---
I see fedora-review struggled with resolving %{forgesource}, but since it
worked in Koji, everything's in order.
Package approved. Full review below:
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[ ]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
Note: Using prebuilt packages
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License". 77 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/clitest/clitest/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.
[-]: 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 20480 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
Note: Could not download Source0:
https://github.com/aureliojargas/clitest/archive/v0.4.0/clitest-0.4.0.tar.gz
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/SourceURL/
Review: Indeed, the above link returns HTTP 404, however the below path
works:
https://github.com/aureliojargas/clitest/archive/0.4.0.tar.gz
Does %{forgesource} get incorrectly generated? It works in Koji, though...
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify fir
[Bug 1884906] Review Request: python-crashtest - Manage Python errors with ease
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884906 --- Comment #2 from Fabio Valentini --- (In reply to Andy Mender from comment #1) > > BuildRequires: python3-devel >= 3.6 > > The version requirement is not needed, because even Fedora 32 ships with > Python 3.8.5 already. I can remove the >= 3.6 requirement, but it doesn't hurt either :) > I see that upstream provides tests: > https://github.com/sdispater/crashtest/tree/master/tests > However, they're not present in the PyPi package. If you'd like to include > them, you'd need to make Source0 point to GitHub release tarballs. In > general it's a good idea to include tests. I am using the PyPI sources on purpose, since they include setup.py, which isn't present in GitHub sources. When building from GitHub it needs poetry, but I don't want to introduce a bootstrap problem - since poetry will require crashtest with the next version. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1884598] Review Request: clitest - Command Line Tester
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884598 Andy Mender changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||andymenderu...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|andymenderu...@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1884906] Review Request: python-crashtest - Manage Python errors with ease
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884906
--- Comment #1 from Andy Mender ---
> BuildRequires: python3-devel >= 3.6
The version requirement is not needed, because even Fedora 32 ships with Python
3.8.5 already.
I see that upstream provides tests:
https://github.com/sdispater/crashtest/tree/master/tests
However, they're not present in the PyPi package. If you'd like to include
them, you'd need to make Source0 point to GitHub release tarballs. In general
it's a good idea to include tests.
Full review below:
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
Note: Using prebuilt packages
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Expat License", "Unknown or generated". 14 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/python-crashtest/python-
crashtest/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
[?]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package 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 must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: 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]: Packa
[Bug 1859627] Review Request: arm-none-eabi-gdb - GDB for (remote) debugging ARM bare-metal targets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1859627 Austin Chang changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(austin880625@gmai | |l.com) | --- Comment #11 from Austin Chang --- Ah, I removed devel package as I intended to. I will do a test with mock and koji again then post a current version for review soon. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1884906] Review Request: python-crashtest - Manage Python errors with ease
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884906 Andy Mender changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||andymenderu...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|andymenderu...@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1867357] Review Request: ansible-collection-google-cloud - Google Cloud Platform collection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1867357 Andy Mender changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(igor.raits@gmail. ||com) --- Comment #6 from Andy Mender --- Hello Igor, any updates on this? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1867290] Review Request: editline - A small compatible replacement for readline
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1867290 Andy Mender changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(petersen@redhat.c ||om) --- Comment #4 from Andy Mender --- Any further news on this review request? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1859627] Review Request: arm-none-eabi-gdb - GDB for (remote) debugging ARM bare-metal targets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1859627 Andy Mender changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(austin880625@gmai ||l.com) --- Comment #10 from Andy Mender --- Hello Austin, any updates on this? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 Andy Mender changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(nielsenb@jetfuse. ||net) --- Comment #43 from Andy Mender --- Hello Brandon, any updates on this? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1882871] Review Request: xmake - A cross-platform build utility based on Lua
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1882871 --- Comment #6 from ruki --- I have completely fixed all the problems, can you help me review this spec file? https://github.com/xmake-io/xmake/blob/dev/scripts/rpmbuild/SPECS/xmake.spec -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1884906] New: Review Request: python-crashtest - Manage Python errors with ease
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884906 Bug ID: 1884906 Summary: Review Request: python-crashtest - Manage Python errors with ease Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: decatho...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/packages/python-crashtest.spec SRPM URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/packages/python-crashtest-0.3.1-1.fc32.src.rpm Description: Crashtest is a Python library that makes exceptions handling and inspection easier. Fedora Account System Username: decathorpe koji scratch build for rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=52694880 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
