[Bug 1895696] libsmf: a library to read / write MIDI files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1895696 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added CC||loganje...@gmail.com --- Comment #8 from Jerry James --- I have agreed to sponsor Yann. Andy, would you like to continue this review? If so, then I can take the sponsoring step once everybody is satisfied. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1898312] Review Request: jakarta-json - Jakarta JSON Processing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1898312 --- Comment #5 from Jerry James --- (In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #4) > 1) You can mark maven packages to not get installed with "%mvn_package", so > you don't have to remove them manually: > Here's an example in jakarta-el: > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/jakarta-el/blob/master/f/jakarta-el. > spec#_71 Oh, good. I had hoped there was some way of doing that. Thanks for the pointer. > 2) According to the "renaming packages" documentation, the obsoleted NVRs > should be < 1.0.4-12, because 1.0.4-11 was the last available NVR of jsonp > and jsonp-javadoc. Fixed. > 3) There are weird Requires for jakarta-json: > > mvn(org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-compiler-plugin) > mvn(org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-source-plugin) > mvn(org.codehaus.mojo:build-helper-maven-plugin) > > Looks like the top-level maven project is a "parent POM", so that should be > fine. I'm not sure the parent POM should even be packaged. Let me see if there is any sign that it's really needed and if not, I will not install it either. Thanks for the review! What can I do for you? Toss me something from your TODO list. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1876006] Review Request: metrics2mqtt - Publish system performance metrics to a MQTT broker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876006 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-7f210246bc 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-2020-7f210246bc \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-7f210246bc 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 1875997] Review Request: python-jsons - Python library for (de)serializing objects to/from JSON
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875997 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-1a3b7045f0 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-2020-1a3b7045f0 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-1a3b7045f0 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 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 #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-61da5dc32d 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-2020-61da5dc32d \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-61da5dc32d 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 1887842] Review Request: gitjacker - Leak git repositories from misconfigured websites
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887842 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-11-28 02:10:16 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-1c6cb2d9bc 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 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 1881612, which changed state. Bug 1881612 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-coocood-freecache - Cache library with zero GC overhead https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1881612 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 1881612] Review Request: golang-github-coocood-freecache - Cache library with zero GC overhead
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1881612 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-11-28 02:03:35 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-07f53fe022 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 1902078] Review Request: python-nest_asyncio - Patch asyncio to allow nested event loops
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1902078 Mukundan Ragavan changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1902081 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1902081 [Bug 1902081] Review Request: python-nbclient - A client library for executing notebooks -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-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 Depends On||1902078 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1902078 [Bug 1902078] Review Request: python-nest_asyncio - Patch asyncio to allow nested event loops -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-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 Mukundan Ragavan changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-11-28 01:56:44 --- Comment #5 from Mukundan Ragavan --- Built for rawhide -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1901759] Review Request: python-jupyterlab_pygments - Pygments theme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1901759 Mukundan Ragavan changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-11-28 01:56:32 --- Comment #5 from Mukundan Ragavan --- Built for rawhide -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 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 Mukundan Ragavan changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-11-28 01:48:28 --- Comment #5 from Mukundan Ragavan --- Built on rawhide. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1901758] Review Request: python-pyls-spyder - Spyder extensions for the python-language-server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1901758 Mukundan Ragavan changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-11-28 01:43:56 --- Comment #5 from Mukundan Ragavan --- Built for rawhide. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1893711] Review request: mamba - virtual midi keyboard
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1893711 --- Comment #11 from Vasiliy Glazov --- OK. Now let's wait libsmf approve. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-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 #10 from ycollet --- Here is the modified spec file: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ycollet/fedora-spec/master/libsmf/libsmf.spec And the correspond src rpm file: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ycollet/linuxmao/fedora-33-x86_64/01798070-libsmf/libsmf-1.3-6.fc33.src.rpm I fixed the wrong date. I applied rpmlint to the spec file and no errors shows up. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-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 --- 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 1898312] Review Request: jakarta-json - Jakarta JSON Processing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1898312
Fabio Valentini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Fabio Valentini ---
1) You can mark maven packages to not get installed with "%mvn_package", so you
don't have to remove them manually:
Here's an example in jakarta-el:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/jakarta-el/blob/master/f/jakarta-el.spec#_71
2) According to the "renaming packages" documentation, the obsoleted NVRs
should be < 1.0.4-12, because 1.0.4-11 was the last available NVR of jsonp and
jsonp-javadoc.
3) There are weird Requires for jakarta-json:
mvn(org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-compiler-plugin)
mvn(org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-source-plugin)
mvn(org.codehaus.mojo:build-helper-maven-plugin)
Looks like the top-level maven project is a "parent POM", so that should be
fine.
1+2 are not blocking issues, and 3) is just a heads-up for you (to check
whether I am reading this right).
Please fix 1+2 before importing the package. PACKAGE APPROVED, full
fedora-review checklist attached below.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[-]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: 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
Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are
[Bug 1902309] Review Request: realtime-setup - setup system environment for low-latency tasks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1902309 --- Comment #1 from Clark Williams --- Note that this is a modified version of the 'rt-setup' package that has been used in RHEL-RT for years. Renamed to 'realtime-setup' to avoid package name conflict with Request Tracker packages. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1902309] New: Review Request: realtime-setup - setup system environment for low-latency tasks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1902309 Bug ID: 1902309 Summary: Review Request: realtime-setup - setup system environment for low-latency tasks Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: willi...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://jcwillia.fedorapeople.org/realtime-setup.spec SRPM URL: https://jcwillia.fedorapeople.org/realtime-setup-2.1-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm Description: Add 'realtime' group, limits.d rules, udev rules, systemd files, and miscellaneous scripts/programs for improving low-latency kernel performance Fedora Account System Username: jcwillia -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1894605] Review Request: realtime-tests - Suite of realtime tests including cyclictest
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1894605 John Kacur changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(jka...@redhat.com | |) | --- Comment #12 from John Kacur --- (In reply to Jiri Kastner from comment #11) > missing make in dependencies > escape '%description' on line 713 (change to %%description) > > ## > > [root@8f0928087582 ~]# rpmlint rpmbuild/SPECS/realtime-tests.spec > rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/realtime-tests-* realtime-tests-debugsource > realtime-tests-debuginfo realtime-tests > realtime-tests.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mutexes -> > mutes, mutates, executes > realtime-tests.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary determine_maximum_mpps.sh > realtime-tests.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary get_cpuinfo_mhz.sh > realtime-tests.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mutexes -> > mutes, mutates, executes > realtime-tests.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary determine_maximum_mpps.sh > realtime-tests.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary get_cpuinfo_mhz.sh > 6 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. > > ### > > i tried those scripts and they do not offer help. > any plans on having some explanation of usage? determine_maximum_mpps.sh is mentioned in the README in the src/queuelat dir. I am planning on writing a short manpage and pushing it upstream soon. get_cpuinfo_mhz.sh is a brief helper script for determine_maximum_mpps.sh although you can run it standalone. I could also write a short manpage for it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-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 --- Comment #4 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) --- Thanks very much. I'll go request the SCM now. About the changelog: we can repeat change log entries with different dates until the E-V-R has been built: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_repeat_the_old_version_release_with_a_new_entry I just tend to use this system so that when the package is built for the first time in the Fedora, it starts with 1 as release, as the first release for Fedora :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-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
Andy Mender changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Andy Mender ---
> The %{py3_dist ...} macro expands to the canonical form:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_requires_and_buildrequires_with_standardized_names
You're completely right! I always missed it somehow...
> I've removed the docs sub-package entirely and referred to the online
> documentation. It's not worth the work to unbundle the fonts and then monitor
> changes in it for each update.
I agree. It's a lot of extra work.
> Updated spec/srpm:
> 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
> Name: python-%{pypi_name}
> Version:1.4.8
> Release:1%{?dist}
> [...]
> %changelog
> * Fri Nov 27 2020 Ankur Sinha - 1.4.8-1
> - Remove docs: bundle fonts
> - Remove unneeded comments
> - Use pytest macro
>
> * Thu Nov 26 2020 Ankur Sinha - 1.4.8-1
> - Initial build
Don't forget to bump the Release number in the changelog and the Release field
:).
You can do it on package import. 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 1902102] Review Request: python-meautility - Package for multi-electrode array (MEA) handling and stimulation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1902102
--- Comment #2 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) ---
Thanks very much for the review Andy,
(In reply to Andy Mender from comment #1)
> Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=56322556
>
> > URL:https://github.com/alejoe91/%{pretty_name}/
>
> Minor thing, but for the URL you can use %{pypi_name}. It will still reach
> it.
Thanks, noted. I've just left it there to match the case used in the PyPi page.
>
> > %if %{with tests}
> > BuildRequires: %{py3_dist pytest}
> > BuildRequires: %{py3_dist numpy}
> > BuildRequires: %{py3_dist pyyaml}
> > BuildRequires: %{py3_dist matplotlib}
> > %endif
>
> Python dependencies should be declared using the format "python3dist(foo)".
The %{py3_dist ...} macro expands to the canonical form:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_requires_and_buildrequires_with_standardized_names
>
> > %package doc
> > Summary:%{summary}
> > BuildRequires: %{py3_dist ipython}
> > BuildRequires: %{py3_dist sphinx}
> > BuildRequires: %{py3_dist sphinx-rtd-theme}
> > BuildRequires: %{py3_dist numpy}
>
> Not a hard requirement, but would it make sense to add a Requires on
> python3-%{pypi_name} to the -doc subpackage?
I've removed the docs sub-package entirely and referred to the online
documentation. It's not worth the work to unbundle the fonts and then monitor
changes in it for each update.
>
> > # Comment out to remove /usr/bin/env shebangs
> > # Can use something similar to correct/remove /usr/bin/python shebangs also
> > # find . -type f -name "*.py" -exec sed -i '/^#![ ]*\/usr\/bin\/env.*$/ d'
> > {} 2>/dev/null ';'
>
> I guess this part should be re-enabled, right?
It wasn't needed in this package (rpmlint reports it), removed.
> > PYTHONPATH=./ sphinx-build-%{python3_version} docs/source docs/build/
> > rm -rf docs/build/{.doctrees,.buildinfo} -vf
>
> From fedora-review:
> > [!]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
> > Note: Package contains font files
>
> You might need to do some font unbundling if the Sphinx docs bundle font
> files.
> Below SPEC file I'm currently updating does this very extensively:
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/widelands/raw/master/f/widelands.spec
Removed docs and referred to the online documentation.
>
> > %check
> > %if %{with tests}
> > pytest-%{python3_version}
> > %endif
>
> I would recommend using the %pytest macro instead.
>
Thanks updated.
Updated spec/srpm:
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
* Fri Nov 27 2020 Ankur Sinha - 1.4.8-1
- Remove docs: bundle fonts
- Remove unneeded comments
- Use pytest macro
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-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 #22 from Yogaraj Alamenda --- We are planning to make one more change for library installation along with the license change where qatengine.so gets installed directly in the engines dir (/usr/lib64/engine-1.1) as the application that need to use engine can only be accessed via OpenSSL and there is no other application that can directly use qatengine. Makefile changes: qatengine_la_LDFLAGS = -module -no-undefined -avoid-version -shared This means there will be no versioned libary in the standard library dir. Could you please confirm having library installed directly in engines dir is fine as we see this approach being used by other engines in Redhat. Also please let us about license question on comment #21 because BSD/GPLv2 and GPLv2 are not used in the RPM. We are planning to do upstream release with changes based on your confirmation. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1894605] Review Request: realtime-tests - Suite of realtime tests including cyclictest
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1894605 Jiri Kastner changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(jka...@redhat.com ||) --- Comment #11 from Jiri Kastner --- missing make in dependencies escape '%description' on line 713 (change to %%description) ## [root@8f0928087582 ~]# rpmlint rpmbuild/SPECS/realtime-tests.spec rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/realtime-tests-* realtime-tests-debugsource realtime-tests-debuginfo realtime-tests realtime-tests.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mutexes -> mutes, mutates, executes realtime-tests.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary determine_maximum_mpps.sh realtime-tests.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary get_cpuinfo_mhz.sh realtime-tests.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mutexes -> mutes, mutates, executes realtime-tests.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary determine_maximum_mpps.sh realtime-tests.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary get_cpuinfo_mhz.sh 6 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. ### i tried those scripts and they do not offer help. any plans on having some explanation of usage? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1894605] Review Request: realtime-tests - Suite of realtime tests including cyclictest
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1894605 Jiri Kastner changed: What|Removed |Added 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 1894605] Review Request: realtime-tests - Suite of realtime tests including cyclictest
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1894605 Jiri Kastner changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cz172...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|cz172...@gmail.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-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
Andy Mender changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Andy Mender ---
> %package -n python3-%{srcname}
> Summary:%{summary}
> %if 0%{?fedora} < 33
> %py_provides python3-%{srcname}
> %endif
Is the conditional worth keeping or should it rather go into Fedora 33+?
Very nice. Approved! Full review below:
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
Note: Using prebuilt packages
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License". 110 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/data/rpmbuild/SPECS/python-strictyaml/python-
strictyaml/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 30720 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: 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 sa
[Bug 1901368] Review Request: python-strictyaml - Parses and validates a restricted subset of YAML
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1901368 Andy Mender changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||andymenderu...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|andymenderu...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1795461] Review Request: practrand - Software package for the Randon number generation & testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795461 --- Comment #11 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) --- Hi Jirka, Hope you are doing well. Just a general check to see if the release was made so this can proceed? Cheers, Ankur -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1832562] Review Request: tpcclib - Tools for processing data from Turku PET Centre (TPC)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1832562 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard||NotReady --- Comment #8 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) --- I'm going to mark this as NotReady. Purusharth, please work on this and ping us when it's ready for review. Cheers, -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-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
--- Comment #1 from Andy Mender ---
Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=56322556
> URL:https://github.com/alejoe91/%{pretty_name}/
Minor thing, but for the URL you can use %{pypi_name}. It will still reach it.
> %if %{with tests}
> BuildRequires: %{py3_dist pytest}
> BuildRequires: %{py3_dist numpy}
> BuildRequires: %{py3_dist pyyaml}
> BuildRequires: %{py3_dist matplotlib}
> %endif
Python dependencies should be declared using the format "python3dist(foo)".
> %package doc
> Summary:%{summary}
> BuildRequires: %{py3_dist ipython}
> BuildRequires: %{py3_dist sphinx}
> BuildRequires: %{py3_dist sphinx-rtd-theme}
> BuildRequires: %{py3_dist numpy}
Not a hard requirement, but would it make sense to add a Requires on
python3-%{pypi_name} to the -doc subpackage?
> # Comment out to remove /usr/bin/env shebangs
> # Can use something similar to correct/remove /usr/bin/python shebangs also
> # find . -type f -name "*.py" -exec sed -i '/^#![ ]*\/usr\/bin\/env.*$/ d'
> {} 2>/dev/null ';'
I guess this part should be re-enabled, right?
> PYTHONPATH=./ sphinx-build-%{python3_version} docs/source docs/build/
> rm -rf docs/build/{.doctrees,.buildinfo} -vf
From fedora-review:
> [!]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
> Note: Package contains font files
You might need to do some font unbundling if the Sphinx docs bundle font files.
Below SPEC file I'm currently updating does this very extensively:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/widelands/raw/master/f/widelands.spec
> %check
> %if %{with tests}
> pytest-%{python3_version}
> %endif
I would recommend using the %pytest macro instead.
Full review below:
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
Note: Using prebuilt packages
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated". 58 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /data/rpmbuild/SPECS/python-
meautility/python-meautility/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package 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 spe
[Bug 1902102] Review Request: python-meautility - Package for multi-electrode array (MEA) handling and stimulation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1902102 Andy Mender changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||andymenderu...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|andymenderu...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1901583] Review Request: javapackages-bootstrap - A means of bootstrapping Java Packages Tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1901583 Mikolaj Izdebski changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Mikolaj Izdebski --- + 11. I can see that issue 11 was fixed by opening upstream issue at https://github.com/fedora-java/javapackages-bootstrap/issues/10 + 12. Issue 12 turned out to be minor as there is actually nothing to filter out, but still filtering should be implemented to prevent unexpected provides/requires from appearing in the future. But that should not be a blocker. + 17. I checked licensing, everything looks correct. Licensing breakdown is very precise. Additional installed MIT license files for plexus-* are correct. + 18. File permissions are correct. + 19. Executables provided by the package seem to work. + 20. Docs are installed. Everything looks good, 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 1901583] Review Request: javapackages-bootstrap - A means of bootstrapping Java Packages Tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1901583 --- Comment #2 from Mikolaj Izdebski --- Created attachment 1734072 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1734072&action=edit rpmlint output -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1876006] Review Request: metrics2mqtt - Publish system performance metrics to a MQTT broker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876006 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-7f210246bc has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-7f210246bc -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-1a3b7045f0 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-1a3b7045f0 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1619610] mozilla-filesystem to own %_libdir/mozilla/native-messaging-hosts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1619610 Martin Stransky changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(praiskup@redhat.c ||om) --- Comment #8 from Martin Stransky --- Pavel do you mind to provide a patch to mozilla-filesystem package? Thanks. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-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 #9 from ycollet --- OK, I will commit a fix tonight. I missed this one ... :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-61da5dc32d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-61da5dc32d -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-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 Vasiliy Glazov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #8 from Vasiliy Glazov --- OK. Just fix issues at libsmf review and request approve from reviewer. After that I make you maintainer and you will add libsmf to the repos. At this review please fix next: 1. bogus date in %changelog: Thu Nov 24 2020 It was Tue. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
