[Bug 1893711] Review request: mamba - virtual midi keyboard
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1893711 --- Comment #7 from ycollet --- Ah, yes, it's a library which allows to read / write MIDI files. I opened a package review here for this library: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1895696 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1893711] Review request: mamba - virtual midi keyboard
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1893711 --- Comment #6 from Vasiliy Glazov --- What is libsmf package? DEBUG util.py:634: No matching package to install: 'libsmf-devel' DEBUG util.py:634: Not all dependencies satisfied DEBUG util.py:634: Error: Some packages could not be found. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1893711] Review request: mamba - virtual midi keyboard
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1893711 --- Comment #5 from ycollet --- Yes, the last build is against version 1.9 of mamba: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ycollet/linuxmao/fedora-33-x86_64/01786444-mamba/mamba-1.9-4.fc33.src.rpm And the spec file is here: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ycollet/fedora-spec/master/guitarix/mamba.spec I added upstream tar.gz artifact which includes all the includes (with submodules). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1893711] Review request: mamba - virtual midi keyboard
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1893711 --- Comment #4 from Vasiliy Glazov --- So you will provide updated SPEC and Srpm? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1883732] Review Request: rubygem-sassc-rails - Integrate SassC-Ruby into Rails
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1883732 Pavel Valena changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||rubygem-sassc-rails-2.1.2-1 ||.fc34 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-11-27 04:34:57 --- Comment #13 from Pavel Valena --- Thank you 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 1901377] Review Request: python-three_merge - Simple library for merging two strings with respect to a base one
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1901377 --- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-three_merge -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1883732] Review Request: rubygem-sassc-rails - Integrate SassC-Ruby into Rails
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1883732 --- Comment #12 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-sassc-rails -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1875997] Review Request: python-jsons - Python library for (de)serializing objects to/from JSON
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875997 --- Comment #13 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-jsons -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1902024] Review Request: python-absl-py - Abseil Python Common Libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1902024 --- Comment #5 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-absl-py -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1883151] Review Request: python-losant-rest - REST client for the Losant API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1883151 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-losant-rest -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1901861] Review Request: python-pytest-error-for-skips - Pytest plugin to treat skipped tests a test failure
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1901861 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pytest-error-for-skips -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1901759] Review Request: python-jupyterlab_pygments - Pygments theme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1901759 --- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-jupyterlab_pygments -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1901757] Review Request: python-pyls_black - Black plugin for the Python Language Server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1901757 --- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pyls_black -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1901758] Review Request: python-pyls-spyder - Spyder extensions for the python-language-server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1901758 --- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pyls-spyder -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1901368] Review Request: python-strictyaml - Parses and validates a restricted subset of YAML
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1901368 c...@musicinmybrain.net changed: What|Removed |Added Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value --- Comment #1 from c...@musicinmybrain.net --- I’ve elected to revise the initial package to cover only the supported Fedora releases, removing the EPEL8 conditionals. Instead of keeping the conditionals in the Fedora package, I will make any changes needed for EPEL8 in that branch once it is created. Please see the revised submission below: Spec URL: https://gitlab.com/musicinmybrain/python-strictyaml-rpm/-/raw/0c28682e85301f36ef41bf03bd78123bc45ae334/python-strictyaml.spec SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/6958/56296958/python-strictyaml-1.1.1-2.fc34.src.rpm Koji builds: F34: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=56296957 F33: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=56297162 F32: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=56297297 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1889021] Review Request: python-mrcrowbar - Library and framework for reverse engineering binary file formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1889021 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-249018f223 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-2020-249018f223 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-249018f223 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 1897762] Review Request: pamix - PulseAudio terminal mixer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1897762 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-fb9b4debb0 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 1892756] Review Request: python-managesieve - Accessing a Sieve-Server for managing Sieve scripts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1892756 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-326af6df23 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 1880439] Review Request: python-pyemby - Python module to interact with a Emby media server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880439 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-11-27 01:22:20 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-3db0fe642d 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 1880645] Review Request: python-pycomfoair - Interface for Zehnder ComfoAir 350 ventilation units
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880645 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-11-27 01:22:17 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-5948870f16 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 1880415] Review Request: python-pymochad - Python library for interacting with moch
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880415 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-11-27 01:22:14 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-031f0e0490 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 1880837] Review Request: python-pytile - Python API for Tile Bluetooth trackers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880837 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-11-27 01:22:11 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-807c96e43d 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 1889409] Review Request: python-waqiasync - Python API for aqicn.org
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1889409 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-11-27 01:22:08 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-02afc5f336 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 1888981] Review Request: python-rangeparser - Parses ranges
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1888981 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-11-27 01:22:06 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-566cdd22a3 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 1889619] Review Request: python-adext - Python module to extend AlarmDecoder module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1889619 Bug 1889619 depends on bug 1889611, which changed state. Bug 1889611 Summary: Review Request: python-alarmdecoder - Python interface for the AlarmDecoder (AD2) devices https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1889611 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1889611] Review Request: python-alarmdecoder - Python interface for the AlarmDecoder (AD2) devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1889611 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-11-27 01:22:00 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-1ef961f051 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 1880653] Review Request: python-pynuvo - Python API for talking to Nuvo multi zone amplifier
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880653 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-11-27 01:21:57 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-cf9055bab1 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 1881611] Review Request: golang-github-projectdiscovery-httpx - Fast and multi-purpose HTTP toolkit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1881611 Bug 1881611 depends on bug 1881604, which changed state. Bug 1881604 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-hbakhtiyor-strsim - String similarity based on Dice's coefficient https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1881604 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1881604] Review Request: golang-github-hbakhtiyor-strsim - String similarity based on Dice's coefficient
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1881604 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-11-27 01:21:52 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-d9b0bb541a 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 1880640] Review Request: python-aiomodbus - Lightweight Python Modbus library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880640 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-11-27 01:21:16 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-8cf85a0749 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 1896988] Review Request: fbzmq - Framework for writing services in C++ while leveraging libzmq
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1896988 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-10c85632d9 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 1896590] Review Request: watchman - File alteration monitoring service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1896590 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-10c85632d9 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 1878046] Review Request: screenkey - Screencast keystrokes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878046 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2020-783976c7d1 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 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 1895722] Review Request: python-snipeit - Python Interface to the SnipeIT API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1895722 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2020-27d8d1b5c0 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 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 1892172] Review Request: python-secure_cookie - Provides interfaces for secure cookies and sessions in WSGI applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1892172 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2020-3ffbc9aa97 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 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 1897762] Review Request: pamix - PulseAudio terminal mixer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1897762 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-11-27 01:11:59 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-99c47a9286 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 1821496] Review Request: open-policy-agent - Open source, general-purpose policy engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1821496 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-b542160130 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 1896988] Review Request: fbzmq - Framework for writing services in C++ while leveraging libzmq
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1896988 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-11-27 01:11:29 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-fd7b7bf8c8 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 1896590] Review Request: watchman - File alteration monitoring service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1896590 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-11-27 01:11:26 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-fd7b7bf8c8 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 1902102] New: Review Request: python-meautility - Package for multi-electrode array (MEA) handling and stimulation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1902102 Bug ID: 1902102 Summary: Review Request: python-meautility - Package for multi-electrode array (MEA) handling and stimulation Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: sanjay.an...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-meautility/python-meautility.spec SRPM URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-meautility/python-meautility-1.4.8-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: Python package for multi-electrode array (MEA) handling and stimulation. Fedora Account System Username: ankursinha -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1902102] Review Request: python-meautility - Package for multi-electrode array (MEA) handling and stimulation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1902102 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) changed: What|Removed |Added CC||neuro-sig@lists.fedoraproje ||ct.org Blocks||1276941 (fedora-neuro), ||1902098 Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276941 [Bug 1276941] Fedora NeuroImaging and NeuroScience tracking bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1902098 [Bug 1902098] python-lfpy-2.2rc3 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 1902024] Review Request: python-absl-py - Abseil Python Common Libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1902024 --- Comment #4 from c...@musicinmybrain.net --- > I think there are pros and cons to that. Yes, I agree. In the end, the EPEL versions are separate branches in Pagure either way; they may or may not have the same contents as the Fedora branches. The question is whether to handle the divergence in spec file syntax and so on with conditionals, or at the point of merging changes from Fedora master. I’ve seen both practices “in the wild.” I think I’m starting to believe in the latter. > I also haven't found any information on whether it's allowed or not to let > Fedora and EPEL git trees diverge on purpose. I think this follows from the EPEL updates policy (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies); Fedora Rawhide always wants the latest version of everything, while packages in EPEL are expected to avoid disruptive updates over the release lifecycle of as much as a decade. Divergence over time is thus guaranteed in almost all cases on the basis of differing package versions alone. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1902024] Review Request: python-absl-py - Abseil Python Common Libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1902024
Andy Mender changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Andy Mender ---
> This is a standard EPEL’ism, unfortunately; see
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts:Python3EPEL.
I see, yes. Thanks for the link!
> it was trying to install a Fedora 32 package into a Fedora 34/Rawhide root.
> No wonder it did not work! Any idea what caused this OS version mismatch?
This one's on me. Apologies! I grabbed the wrong Koji build.
> New Spec URL:
> https://gitlab.com/musicinmybrain/abseil-py-rpm/-/raw/9d4a6a4a/python-absl-py.spec
> %package -n python3-%{srcname}
> Summary:%{summary}
> %if 0%{?fedora} < 33
> %py_provides python3-%{srcname}
> %endif
I would probably remove this check, since F33 is on its way out.
> I think you have inadvertently convinced me that, for Python packages like
> this in particular, it would be better to submit a clean Fedora package, then
> introduce EPEL-specific cruft only in the relevant branches once the package
> is created, rather than littering the initial submission and the Fedora
> master with excessive conditionals.
I think there are pros and cons to that. Would keeping the EPEL files in
separate branches not make their git trees (EPEL7 and EPEL8) diverge from
master and then require extra fiddling to keep the common bits in-sync with
Fedora packages?
On the other hand, it does make the SPEC files vastly more readable.
> I guess the EPEL versions are now technically out of scope of the review, but
> you’re welcome to look over
> https://gitlab.com/musicinmybrain/abseil-py-rpm/-/raw/86f21d51bc792bc94e1ecd334f0b75cd829447f9/python-absl-py.spec,
> which works for both EPEL7 and EPEL8.
Double-checked it with the extra EPEL guidelines and this looks good! I also
haven't found any information on whether it's allowed or not to let Fedora and
EPEL git trees diverge on purpose.
From my side the 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 1883151] Review Request: python-losant-rest - REST client for the Losant API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1883151 --- Comment #2 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 1902078] New: Review Request: python-nest_asyncio - Patch asyncio to allow nested event loops
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1902078 Bug ID: 1902078 Summary: Review Request: python-nest_asyncio - Patch asyncio to allow nested event loops Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: nonamed...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/python-packages/python-nest_asyncio/python-nest_asyncio.spec SRPM URL: https://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/python-packages/python-nest_asyncio/python-nest_asyncio-1.4.3-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: By design asyncio does not allow its event loop to be nested. This presents a practical problem: When in an environment where the event loop is already running it is impossible to run tasks and wait for the result. Trying to do so will give the error "RuntimeError: This event loop is already running". The issue pops up in various environments, such as web servers, GUI applications and in Jupyter notebooks. This module patches asyncio to allow nested use of asyncio.run and loop.run_until_complete. Fedora Account System Username: nonamedotc -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1902081] Review Request: python-nbclient - A client library for executing notebooks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1902081 Mukundan Ragavan changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: -|library for executing ||notebooks 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 1902081] New: Review Request: -
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1902081 Bug ID: 1902081 Summary: Review Request: - Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: nonamed...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/python-packages/python-nbclient/python-nbclient.spec SRPM URL: https://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/python-packages/python-nbclient/python-nbclient-0.5.1-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: NBClient, a client library for programmatic notebook execution, is a tool for running Jupyter Notebooks in different execution contexts. NBClient was spun out of nbconvert (formerly ExecutePreprocessor). NBClient lets you execute notebooks. Fedora Account System Username: nonamedotc -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1902024] Review Request: python-absl-py - Abseil Python Common Libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1902024
--- Comment #2 from c...@musicinmybrain.net ---
> You can re-use URL in Source0 as %{url}.
Good idea; done.
> Is the %{python3_pkgversion} macro actually needed? Can these calls be
> replaced with simply python3-%{srcname} as is the case for the python2
> packages?
This is a standard EPEL’ism, unfortunately; see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts:Python3EPEL.
> Not sure about the use of %pyX_dist above. Would the format
> "pythonXdist(foo)" work in either/both cases?
Yes, since there aren’t any modules with odd names for py3_dist to adjust, this
would be fine.
> What about using "%if 0%{?epel} > 7" as a condition? I know you're not
> technically targeting EPEL6, but...
This would be OK, although it would have to be "%if 0%{?epel} > 7 || !
0%{?epel}" to avoid catching Fedora.
> - Package installs properly.
> Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
> See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
Looking at the command that failed,
> # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/
> --releasever 34 --setopt=deltarpm=False --allowerasing --disableplugin=local
> --disableplugin=spacewalk install
> /data/rpmbuild/SPECS/python-absl-py/python3-absl-py-0.11.0-1.fc32.noarch.rpm
> --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts
it was trying to install a Fedora 32 package into a Fedora 34/Rawhide root. No
wonder it did not work! Any idea what caused this OS version mismatch?
I think you have inadvertently convinced me that, for Python packages like this
in particular, it would be better to submit a clean Fedora package, then
introduce EPEL-specific cruft only in the relevant branches once the package is
created, rather than littering the initial submission and the Fedora master
with excessive conditionals.
New Spec URL:
https://gitlab.com/musicinmybrain/abseil-py-rpm/-/raw/9d4a6a4a/python-absl-py.spec
New SRPM URL:
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/9640/56289640/python-absl-py-0.11.0-2.fc34.src.rpm
New Koji builds:
F34: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=56289639
F33: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=56289660
F32: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=56289694
I guess the EPEL versions are now technically out of scope of the review, but
you’re welcome to look over
https://gitlab.com/musicinmybrain/abseil-py-rpm/-/raw/86f21d51bc792bc94e1ecd334f0b75cd829447f9/python-absl-py.spec,
which works for both EPEL7 and EPEL8.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1901758] Review Request: python-pyls-spyder - Spyder extensions for the python-language-server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1901758 --- Comment #3 from Mukundan Ragavan --- 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 1901759] Review Request: python-jupyterlab_pygments - Pygments theme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1901759 --- Comment #3 from Mukundan Ragavan --- 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 1901757] Review Request: python-pyls_black - Black plugin for the Python Language Server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1901757 --- Comment #3 from Mukundan Ragavan --- Thanks for the review. I have submitted a request to include the license in future tarballs. https://github.com/rupert/pyls-black/issues/33 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1901851] Review Request: python-stdiomask - Python module for masking passwords
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1901851
Andy Mender changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Andy Mender ---
Very nice! Package approved!
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]: 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". 10 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /data/rpmbuild/SPECS/python-
stdiomask/python-stdiomask/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 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]: 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).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publ
[Bug 1901851] Review Request: python-stdiomask - Python module for masking passwords
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1901851 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 1902024] Review Request: python-absl-py - Abseil Python Common Libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1902024
--- Comment #1 from Andy Mender ---
I don't have much experience with packaging for EPEL so please excuse some of
my questions :).
> URL:https://github.com/abseil/%{reponame}/
> Source0:
> https://github.com/abseil/%{reponame}/archive/pypi-v%{version}/%{reponame}-pypi-v%{version}.tar.gz
You can re-use URL in Source0 as %{url}.
> %package -n python%{python3_pkgversion}-%{srcname}
Is the %{python3_pkgversion} macro actually needed? Can these calls be replaced
with simply python3-%{srcname} as is the case for the python2 packages?
> %if 0%{?epel} != 7
> BuildRequires: %{py3_dist setuptools}
> BuildRequires: %{py3_dist six}
> %else
> BuildRequires: python%{python3_pkgversion}-setuptools
> BuildRequires: python%{python3_pkgversion}-six
>
> Requires: python%{python3_pkgversion}-six
> %endif
What about using "%if 0%{?epel} > 7" as a condition? I know you're not
technically targeting EPEL6, but...
> %if 0%{?epel} != 7
> BuildRequires: %{py3_dist setuptools}
> BuildRequires: %{py3_dist six}
> %else
> BuildRequires: python%{python3_pkgversion}-setuptools
> BuildRequires: python%{python3_pkgversion}-six
>
> Requires: python%{python3_pkgversion}-six
> %endif
Not sure about the use of %pyX_dist above. Would the format "pythonXdist(foo)"
work in either/both cases?
> %if 0%{?epel} != 7
> BuildRequires: %{py2_dist setuptools}
> BuildRequires: %{py2_dist six}
> BuildRequires: %{py2_dist enum34}
> %else
> BuildRequires: python2-setuptools
> BuildRequires: python2-six
> BuildRequires: python2-enum34
>
> Requires: python2-six
> Requires: python2-enum34
> %endif
Same here.
Full review matrix:
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
= 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: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU General Public
License", "Apache License 2.0". 25 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in /data/rpmbuild/SPECS/python-absl-
py/python-absl-py/licensecheck.txt
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.8,
/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages
[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 6 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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 must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package us
[Bug 1902024] Review Request: python-absl-py - Abseil Python Common Libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1902024 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 1901861] Review Request: python-pytest-error-for-skips - Pytest plugin to treat skipped tests a test failure
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1901861 --- Comment #2 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 1902024] New: Review Request: python-absl-py - Abseil Python Common Libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1902024 Bug ID: 1902024 Summary: Review Request: python-absl-py - Abseil Python Common Libraries Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: c...@musicinmybrain.net QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://gitlab.com/musicinmybrain/abseil-py-rpm/-/raw/f7a4a20aa1bf6d569ff57acfec7168d8fc64cddb/python-absl-py.spec SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/5820/56285820/python-absl-py-0.11.0-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: This repository is a collection of Python library code for building Python applications. The code is collected from Google’s own Python code base, and has been extensively tested and used in production. Features: • Simple application startup • Distributed commandline flags system • Custom logging module with additional features • Testing utilities Fedora Account System Username: music Koji builds: F34: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=56285814 F33: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=56285934 F32: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=56286025 EPEL8: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=56286240 EPEL7: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=56286391 I want this package as a dependency for gftools (Google Fonts Tools). Here are some other projects that use it: https://www.wheelodex.org/projects/absl-py/rdepends/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1901861] Review Request: python-pytest-error-for-skips - Pytest plugin to treat skipped tests a test failure
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1901861
Andy Mender changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Andy Mender ---
> BuildRequires: python3dist(setuptools)
> %{?python_provide:%python_provide python3-%{pypi_name}}
Switch to the %py_provides macro.
The rest looks okay. Package approved!
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: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License". 11 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/data/rpmbuild/SPECS/python-pytest-error-for-skips/python-pytest-
error-for-skips/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.
[x]: 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).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest v
[Bug 1901861] Review Request: python-pytest-error-for-skips - Pytest plugin to treat skipped tests a test failure
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1901861 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 1897619] Review Request: rubygem-asciidoctor-diagram - Asciidoctor diagramming extension
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1897619 Christopher Brown changed: What|Removed |Added Comment|0 |updated --- Comment #0 has been edited --- Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/snecklifter/rubygem-asciidoctor-diagram/master/rubygem-asciidoctor-diagram.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/snecker/rubygem-asciidoctor-diagram/ Description: Asciidoctor Diagram is a set of Asciidoctor extensions that enables you to add diagrams, which you describe using plain text, to your AsciiDoc document. Fedora Account System Username: snecker -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1897619] Review Request: rubygem-asciidoctor-diagram - Asciidoctor diagramming extension
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1897619 Christopher Brown changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(chris.brown@redha | |t.com) | --- Comment #2 from Christopher Brown --- Hi Jared, (In reply to Jared Smith from comment #1) > The %check section appears to have some issues: Thanks, thats the original build. I'll update the comment. https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/snecker/rubygem-asciidoctor-diagram/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1888345] Review Request: python-hbmqtt - MQTT client/broker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1888345 --- Comment #3 from Andy Mender --- > Only way to avoid this is to not ship the docs. I'm wondering why this > doesn't happen for other packages which depends sphinx-rtd-theme as the > config for the docs looks pretty "standard". Some packages which generate Sphinx docs bundle font files like Font Awesome and some don't. Some also download extra artifacts during the doc building process. I think it's often overlooked by upstream, because unless packaged, neither is an issue which prevents direct software usage. I think we have the following options: 1. Remove the docs in the %build stage and not package them at all. 2. Remove the font files and link them in from system font packages. Below are the ones used in python-hbmqtt: - google-roboto-slab-fonts - fontawesome-fonts-web (probably also: fontawesome-fonts) - lato-fonts 3. Suggest to upstream to use fontconfig for font file discovery. If option 2. actually works, it could set a precedence for other similar packages. Extra docs from the packaging guidelines: - https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bundling - https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/FontsPolicy/#_dependencies_to_font_packages_in_other_packages - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Shipping_fonts_in_Fedora_(FAQ)#What_if_my_package_bundles_FreeSans.2C_Linux_Libertine.2C_Droid_or_Liberation_fonts.3F - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Shipping_fonts_in_Fedora_(FAQ)#But_I_really_do_not_want_to_take_part_in_this_fonts_packaging_business.21 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1885495] Review Request: qatengine - Intel(R) QuickAssist Technology (QAT) OpenSSL Engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885495
--- Comment #21 from Yogaraj Alamenda ---
Thanks Carl for the review.
1. Although the below files under BSD/GPLv2 and GPLv2 are in the package, these
are never used or built in the qatengine RPM library build. These files are
only used for different build system in the qatengine other than rpm build. So
these licenses need not to be included in License. Do we still these license to
be included? If not, We will update the License to BSD and OpenSSL only. This
needs update in the license file section to include LICENSE.OPENSSL as well
which we are planning to make changes and provide SRPM with updated upstream
package.
BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License GNU General Public License, Version 2
-
QAT_Engine-0.6.2/qat/config/c3xxx/multi_process_event-driven_optimized/c3xxx_dev0.conf
QAT_Engine-0.6.2/qat/config/c3xxx/multi_process_optimized/c3xxx_dev0.conf
QAT_Engine-0.6.2/qat/config/c3xxx/multi_thread_event-driven_optimized/c3xxx_dev0.conf
QAT_Engine-0.6.2/qat/config/c3xxx/multi_thread_optimized/c3xxx_dev0.conf
QAT_Engine-0.6.2/qat/config/c6xx/multi_process_event-driven_optimized/c6xx_dev0.conf
QAT_Engine-0.6.2/qat/config/c6xx/multi_process_event-driven_optimized/c6xx_dev1.conf
QAT_Engine-0.6.2/qat/config/c6xx/multi_process_event-driven_optimized/c6xx_dev2.conf
QAT_Engine-0.6.2/qat/config/c6xx/multi_process_optimized/c6xx_dev0.conf
QAT_Engine-0.6.2/qat/config/c6xx/multi_process_optimized/c6xx_dev1.conf
QAT_Engine-0.6.2/qat/config/c6xx/multi_process_optimized/c6xx_dev2.conf
QAT_Engine-0.6.2/qat/config/c6xx/multi_thread_event-driven_optimized/c6xx_dev0.conf
QAT_Engine-0.6.2/qat/config/c6xx/multi_thread_event-driven_optimized/c6xx_dev1.conf
QAT_Engine-0.6.2/qat/config/c6xx/multi_thread_event-driven_optimized/c6xx_dev2.conf
QAT_Engine-0.6.2/qat/config/c6xx/multi_thread_optimized/c6xx_dev0.conf
QAT_Engine-0.6.2/qat/config/c6xx/multi_thread_optimized/c6xx_dev1.conf
QAT_Engine-0.6.2/qat/config/c6xx/multi_thread_optimized/c6xx_dev2.conf
QAT_Engine-0.6.2/qat/config/dh895xcc/multi_process_event-driven_optimized/dh895xcc_dev0.conf
QAT_Engine-0.6.2/qat/config/dh895xcc/multi_process_optimized/dh895xcc_dev0.conf
QAT_Engine-0.6.2/qat/config/dh895xcc/multi_thread_event-driven_optimized/dh895xcc_dev0.conf
QAT_Engine-0.6.2/qat/config/dh895xcc/multi_thread_optimized/dh895xcc_dev0.conf
GNU General Public License, Version 2
-
QAT_Engine-0.6.2/qat/LICENSE.GPL
QAT_Engine-0.6.2/qat_contig_mem/LICENSE.GPL
QAT_Engine-0.6.2/qat_contig_mem/qat_contig_mem.c
QAT_Engine-0.6.2/qat_contig_mem/qat_contig_mem.h
QAT_Engine-0.6.2/qat_contig_mem/qat_contig_mem_test.c
2.Hope using qatengine.so below (expected by OpenSSL) symlink to versioned
library is fine and there are no other issues apart from this licensing.
%{_libdir}/libqatengine.so.%{soversion}*
%{enginesdir}/qatengine.so
Please let us know if there are any other issues that needs change so that we
can update the same in the new 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 1888345] Review Request: python-hbmqtt - MQTT client/broker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1888345 --- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter --- (In reply to Andy Mender from comment #1) > Looks good, but there is a problem with the -doc package: > [!]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. > Note: Package contains font files > Review: This is problematic. The package adds fonts as part of the > Sphinx > HTML docs to usr/share/doc/python-hbmqtt-doc/html/_static/fonts/ > I'm afraid these tightly coupled with the docs and fonts should not be > bundled with non-font packages. Only way to avoid this is to not ship the docs. I'm wondering why this doesn't happen for other packages which depends sphinx-rtd-theme as the config for the docs looks pretty "standard". -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1888345] Review Request: python-hbmqtt - MQTT client/broker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1888345 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1892891 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1892891 [Bug 1892891] F34FailsToInstall: python3-volvooncall -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1901861] Review Request: python-pytest-error-for-skips - Pytest plugin to treat skipped tests a test failure
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1901861 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1901839 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1901839 [Bug 1901839] python-brother-0.1.20 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 1901861] New: Review Request: python-pytest-error-for-skips - Pytest plugin to treat skipped tests a test failure
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1901861 Bug ID: 1901861 Summary: Review Request: python-pytest-error-for-skips - Pytest plugin to treat skipped tests a test failure Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: m...@fabian-affolter.ch QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-pytest-error-for-skips.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-pytest-error-for-skips-2.0.2-1.fc33.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/janschulz/pytest-error-for-skips Description: Pytest plugin to treat skipped tests a test failure. Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=56274088 rpmlint output: $ rpmlint python-pytest-error-for-skips-2.0.2-1.fc33.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint python3-pytest-error-for-skips-2.0.2-1.fc33.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Fedora Account System Username: fab -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1901759] Review Request: python-jupyterlab_pygments - Pygments theme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1901759
Tomáš Hrnčiar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Tomáš Hrnčiar ---
The package is APPROVED.
Note there are some rpmlint warnings you might consider to filter out.
Rpmlint
---
Checking: python3-jupyterlab_pygments-0.1.2-1.fc34.noarch.rpm
python-jupyterlab_pygments-0.1.2-1.fc34.src.rpm
python3-jupyterlab_pygments.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Pygments
-> Pigments, Segments
python3-jupyterlab_pygments.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
pygments -> pigments, segments
python-jupyterlab_pygments.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Pygments ->
Pigments, Segments
python-jupyterlab_pygments.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
pygments -> pigments, segments
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb
backend.
warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb
backend.
python3-jupyterlab_pygments.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Pygments
-> Pigments, Segments
python3-jupyterlab_pygments.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
pygments -> pigments, segments
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unve
[Bug 1901851] Review Request: python-stdiomask - Python module for masking passwords
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1901851 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1892890 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1892890 [Bug 1892890] F34FailsToInstall: python3-subarulink -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1901851] New: Review Request: python-stdiomask - Python module for masking passwords
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1901851 Bug ID: 1901851 Summary: Review Request: python-stdiomask - Python module for masking passwords Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: m...@fabian-affolter.ch QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-stdiomask.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-stdiomask-0.0.1-1.fc33.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/asweigart/stdiomask Description: Stdio Mask is a cross-platform Python module for entering passwords to a stdio terminal and displaying a mask, which getpass cannot do. Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=56272240 rpmlint output: $ rpmlint python-stdiomask-0.0.1-1.fc33.src.rpm python-stdiomask.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US getpass -> get pass, get-pass, passage 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint python3-stdiomask-0.0.1-1.fc33.noarch.rpm python3-stdiomask.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US getpass -> get pass, get-pass, passage 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Fedora Account System Username: fab -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1840865] Review Request: lv2lint - LV2 turtle language checker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1840865 ycollet changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |NEW Resolution|NOTABUG |--- Keywords||Reopened -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1844120] Review Request: Jamulus - A tool for live rehearsale acroos the internet
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1844120 ycollet changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |NEW Resolution|NOTABUG |--- Keywords||Reopened -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1895696] libsmf: a library to read / write MIDI files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1895696 ycollet changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |NEW Resolution|NOTABUG |--- Keywords||Reopened -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1893711] Review request: mamba - virtual midi keyboard
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1893711 ycollet changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |NEW Resolution|NOTABUG |--- Keywords||Reopened -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1901759] Review Request: python-jupyterlab_pygments - Pygments theme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1901759 Tomáš Hrnčiar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||thrnc...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|thrnc...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1901757] Review Request: python-pyls_black - Black plugin for the Python Language Server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1901757 Tomáš Hrnčiar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1901757] Review Request: python-pyls_black - Black plugin for the Python Language Server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1901757
Tomáš Hrnčiar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Tomáš Hrnčiar ---
The package is APPROVED.
You might contact upstream and ask them to include LICENSE file in pypi
tarball.
[ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
Note there are some rpmlint warnings you might consider to filter out.
Rpmlint
---
Checking: python3-pyls_black-0.4.6-1.fc34.noarch.rpm
python-pyls_black-0.4.6-1.fc34.src.rpm
python3-pyls_black.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pyls ->
pals, pols, pylons
python-pyls_black.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pyls -> pals,
pols, pylons
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb
backend.
warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb
backend.
python3-pyls_black.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pyls ->
pals, pols, pylons
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python pack
[Bug 1901757] Review Request: python-pyls_black - Black plugin for the Python Language Server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1901757 Tomáš Hrnčiar changed: What|Removed |Added CC||thrnc...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|thrnc...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1896368] Review Request: ntpsec - NTP daemon and utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1896368 --- Comment #3 from Miroslav Lichvar --- Thanks for the review. I'll see if I can fix the issues and post a new 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
