[Bug 1834731] Review Request: bitcoin - Peer to Peer Cryptographic Currency

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731



--- Comment #52 from Warren Togami  ---
> For the 0.21 release something has changed in the boost code, so Boost as 
> provided by the base distribution in CentOS/RHEL 7 is no longer enough.

I have a plan to fix this and more for RHEL7+ and Fedora in a uniform way. It
might take a few weeks for this to be ready. I can explain it sooner if you
would like to talk.

Sorry for injecting myself into this after you've put half a year of work into
this. You disregarded critical warnings in Bug #1020292 as to why packaging
this is hazardous. There are risks you are not familiar with as to why
historically none of the leading distros (Fedora, Debian, Ubuntu) have packaged
Bitcoin Core. Tldr: Builds dynamic linked to system libraries have previously
been vulnerable to catastrophic network divergence. Distribution packages
wouldn't be dangerous if only a few people used it. But should they become the
most common way of using Bitcoin Core then it would be a systemic risk. This
was not only a hypothetical problem. BIP66 is one such historical example that
could have been exacerbated by distro packages becoming the most common way to
run Bitcoin Core full nodes.

The safer way for downstream distributions to handle this not become possible
until recent upstream work (Guix-related). There's three step needed to make
this usable for Fedora/RHEL.

1) Guix-based deterministic builds of Bitcoin Core to become the official
release process (replacing their previous Ubuntu-based Gitian). This work is
now 99% complete.

2) Add rpmbuild to upstream's Guix build process. It would generate
deterministic binary RPMS alongside their binary tarballs.

https://salsa.debian.org/debian/guix/-/tree/debian/devel/debian
https://github.com/pjotrp/guix-notes/blob/master/GUIX-NO-ROOT.org

3) Package Guix for Fedora much in the same way as Debian did it. This would
allow us to have a known deterministic build system that is capable of building
identical binaries.

I did not appreciate how you closed Bug #1020292 and disregarded the warnings
written there. Out of respect I am not unilaterally closing this bug.

Step #2 above is an opportunity to collaborate. I assigned one of my engineers
to work on this. We should collaborate on what exactly we want to be in a
bitcoincore RPM package. For example instead of your -server package we may
want to consider systemd service @ units as an official way to configure and
launch multiple nodes.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1901829] Review Request: php-yoast-phpunit-polyfills - Set of polyfills for changed PHPUnit functionality

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1901829

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|MODIFIED



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2021-676bb4a1d0 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-676bb4a1d0


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1916648] Review Request: python-sphinx_lv2_theme - A minimal pure-CSS theme for Sphinx

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1916648

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2021-01-27 04:11:47



--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2021-01fe71fe47 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 1897456] Review Request: ghc-OpenGLRaw - A raw binding for the OpenGL graphics system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1897456



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2021-c7e9cdbede has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing
--advisory=FEDORA-2021-c7e9cdbede \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-c7e9cdbede

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 1914292] Review Request: tkrzw - Fast key-value storage

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914292

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2021-d4545e33b7 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing
--advisory=FEDORA-2021-d4545e33b7`
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-d4545e33b7

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 1897456] Review Request: ghc-OpenGLRaw - A raw binding for the OpenGL graphics system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1897456

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2021-8284ddcd77 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing
--advisory=FEDORA-2021-8284ddcd77 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-8284ddcd77

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 1920754] Review Request: opendoas - Portable fork of the OpenBSD's doas commandPortable fork of the OpenBSD's doas command

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1920754



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin   ---
Koji scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=60610439


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1920754] New: Review Request: opendoas - Portable fork of the OpenBSD's doas commandPortable fork of the OpenBSD's doas command

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1920754

Bug ID: 1920754
   Summary: Review Request: opendoas - Portable fork of the
OpenBSD's doas commandPortable fork of the OpenBSD's
doas command
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: zebo...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Spec URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/opendoas.spec
SRPM URL:
https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/opendoas-6.8-1.fc34.src.rpm

Description:
doas is a minimal replacement for the venerable sudo. It was initially written
by Ted Unangst of the OpenBSD project to provide 95% of the features of sudo
with a fraction of the codebase.doas is a minimal replacement for the venerable
sudo. It was initially written by Ted Unangst of the OpenBSD project to provide
95% of the features of sudo with a fraction of the codebase.

Fedora Account System Username: eclipseo


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1920251] Review Request: python-steam - Python package for interacting with Steam

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1920251



--- Comment #5 from Mohan Boddu  ---
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-steam


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1920242] Review Request: python-gevent-eventemitter - EventEmitter using gevent

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1920242



--- Comment #5 from Mohan Boddu  ---
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-gevent-eventemitter


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1920719] Review Request: rubygem-between_meals - Library for calculating Chef differences between revisions

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1920719

Davide Cavalca  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Summary|Review Request: |Review Request:
   |rubygem-between_meals - |rubygem-between_meals -
   |Between Meals   |Library for calculating
   ||Chef differences between
   ||revisions
   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 1901829] Review Request: php-yoast-phpunit-polyfills - Set of polyfills for changed PHPUnit functionality

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1901829



--- Comment #4 from Mohan Boddu  ---
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/php-yoast-phpunit-polyfills


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1897436] Review Request: ghc-HsOpenSSL-x509-system - Use the system's native CA certificate store with HsOpenSSL

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1897436



--- Comment #5 from Mohan Boddu  ---
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ghc-HsOpenSSL-x509-system


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1920719] New: Review Request: rubygem-between_meals - Between Meals

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1920719

Bug ID: 1920719
   Summary: Review Request: rubygem-between_meals - Between Meals
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: dcava...@fb.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Spec URL:
https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/rubygem-between_meals/rubygem-between_meals.spec
SRPM URL:
https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/rubygem-between_meals/rubygem-between_meals-0.0.12-1.fc34.src.rpm

Description:
Between Meals is the library for calculating what Chef objects were modified
between two revisions in a version control system. It is also the library that
backs Taste Tester and Grocery Delivery. It currently supports SVN, GIT and
HG, but plugins can easily be written for other source control systems. It
also includes some wrappers around knife execution and a few other utility
functions.

Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1920719] Review Request: rubygem-between_meals - Between Meals

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1920719



--- Comment #1 from Davide Cavalca  ---
This package built on koji: 
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=60600524


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1917998] Review Request: oc-inject - Copy an executable to an OpenShift container and run it

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1917998

Serhei Makarov  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Comment|0   |updated



--- Comment #0 has been edited ---

Spec URL:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/serhei/oc-inject/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01889778-oc-inject/oc-inject.spec
SRPM URL:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/serhei/oc-inject/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01889778-oc-inject/oc-inject-0.7.9-2.fc34.src.rpm
Description: Copy an executable to an OpenShift container and run the
executable.

oc-inject is a prototype tool for last-resort troubleshooting of a
running container, when a required debugging tool is not present in
the container image.
Fedora Account System Username: smakarov

Note: This is my first new package submission for Fedora. I maintain an
upstream repo of this project at https://github.com/serhei/oc-inject.

Koji scratch build at
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=59983051

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1917998] Review Request: oc-inject - Copy an executable to an OpenShift container and run it

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1917998

Serhei Makarov  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |



--- Comment #7 from Serhei Makarov  ---
Nevermind, I remembered I was previously sponsored for fedora packaging under
the 'smakarov' account. Clearing FE-NEEDSPONSOR and editing the username in the
original review request.
Now if I could only get that account to log into Pagure



Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841
[Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a
sponsor
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1020292] DO NOT PACKAGE: bitcoin - Peer-to-peer digital currency

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020292



--- Comment #59 from Warren Togami  ---
https://salsa.debian.org/debian/guix/-/tree/debian/devel/debian
I'm told this is how Debian packaged Guix. It appears to be a proper bootstrap
starting from guile.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1834731] Review Request: bitcoin - Peer to Peer Cryptographic Currency

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731



--- Comment #50 from Warren Togami  ---
https://salsa.debian.org/debian/guix/-/tree/debian/devel/debian
I'm told this is how Debian packaged Guix. It appears to be a proper bootstrap
starting from guile.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1834731] Review Request: bitcoin - Peer to Peer Cryptographic Currency

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731



--- Comment #51 from Warren Togami  ---
oops wrong ticket


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1020292] DO NOT PACKAGE: bitcoin - Peer-to-peer digital currency

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020292



--- Comment #58 from Warren Togami  ---
(In reply to Warren Togami from comment #47)
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/tree/master/contrib/guix
> The verifiable bootstrap and reproducibly built Bitcoin Core was merged a
> while ago. Linux builds work great today but they are working to fix their
> Windows and OS X cross compiled builds before the project switches to this
> method for releases.
> 
> If people want this to be packaged into Fedora first we need to get its
> buildsystem Guix accepted into Fedora. We might need FESCo approval for this
> or later Bitcoin-specific steps.
> 
> https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/lantw44/guix/
> I have not tried this but somebody maintains it in COPR already.

https://twitter.com/dustyweb/status/1353459955861434368
Debian Unstable now ships Guix. This is how we can build binaries that are
identical to upstream while eliminating possible security concerns about the
buildroot.

Guix can be bootstrapped using standard build tools. So with some effort Guix
could be bootstrapped on Fedora. It should become binary identical to Guix
bootstrapped elsewhere. I'm looking into this but I would appreciate help to
figure out how to get this packaged in 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 1920606] Review Request: golang-github-googlecloudplatform-guest-logging - Logging facade used by GCP guest agents

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1920606



--- Comment #2 from ericedens  ---
done!


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1920606] Review Request: golang-github-googlecloudplatform-guest-logging - Logging facade used by GCP guest agents

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1920606

ericedens  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Comment|0   |updated



--- Comment #0 has been edited ---

Spec URL:
https://github.com/EricEdens/fedora-packages/blob/google-guest-logging/golang-github-googlecloudplatform-guest-logging.spec
SRPM URL: 
 -
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/ericedens/gcp-guest-packages/build/1905931/
 -
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ericedens/gcp-guest-packages/fedora-33-x86_64/01905931-golang-github-googlecloudplatform-guest-logging/
Description: Logging facade for Google Cloud Platform guest agents. Required to
complete .
Fedora Account System Username: ericedens

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1020292] DO NOT PACKAGE: bitcoin - Peer-to-peer digital currency

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020292

Warren Togami  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|wtog...@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 1834731] Review Request: bitcoin - Peer to Peer Cryptographic Currency

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731



--- Comment #49 from Warren Togami  ---
> - permissions of /etc/bitcoin folder (0750) too strict - ordinary users 
> cannot view conf

You mean bitcoin.conf? You absolutely do not want other users to be able to
read that. It can contains secrets.

Overall I have concerns that this package shoehorns non-default config and
datadir. This is not the "normal" way of using bitcoind. This package entering
the repository could be a surprise to some with several external repo packages
that people have installed in the past years.

I wrote related concerns of packaging conflicts at
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020292#c45

> # FIXME This is less than ideal, but until dwalsh gives me a better way...

Mitigating factor is if all the non-upstream-default stuff is in an optional
subpackage. In your case -server does seem to self-contain the .service,
selinux, non-default config and non-default datadir. If people want to use it
in the upstream way they could install only the main package. (I have not fully
reviewed if these things are fully contained in the -server subpackage.)

> * Wed Jul 22 2020 Simone Caronni  - 0.20.0-7
> - Use libdb 5.x instead of deprecated 4.x. Fixes build on RHEL/CentOS 8.

Sorry please do not do this. Upstream strongly recommends against using DB5 for
a reason.

db4 is the official upstream wallet.dat format. They plan to migrate away from
db4 to sqlite in the next year. Building against db5 is in the build system as
only a convenience but it is strongly discouraged all these years because db5
wallet.dat is not supported by the upstream distribution, and it could leave
users stuck without a supported migration path.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1834731] Review Request: bitcoin - Peer to Peer Cryptographic Currency

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731

Warren Togami  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||wtog...@gmail.com



--- Comment #48 from Warren Togami  ---
Sorry I've missed this discussion. Please do not proceed with this package in
Fedora until we've had a chance to speak. I am concerned that we have a
long-term plan in line with upstream's recommendations.

Concerned parties please contact me at warren on Freenode or wtog...@gmail.com.
Let's schedule a meeting to discuss this. See historical discussion in Bug
#1020292.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1884608] Review Request: dosbox-staging - DOS/x86 emulator focusing on ease of use

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884608



--- Comment #24 from Patryk Obara  ---
(In reply to Kamil Páral from comment #23)
> (In reply to Hans de Goede from comment #18)
> > Oops, I made a copy and paste error in the Provides/Obsoletes bits, the
> > correct lines are:
> > 
> > Provides:  dosbox = %{version}-%{release}
> > Obsoletes: dosbox < %{version}-%{release}
> 
> I believe this is not correct. According to the documentation [1], and given
> that dosbox's highest NVR is dosbox-0.74.3-6.fc34 [2], I believe it should
> be:
> 
> > Provides:  dosbox = %{version}-%{release}
> > Obsoletes: dosbox < 0.74.4


Good point. I updated the spec file to 0.76.0-2:

Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dosbox-staging/dosbox-staging/e131d5624021e6afe088507f7c7526d404f60be9/contrib/fedora/dosbox-staging.spec
Spec Diff:
https://github.com/dosbox-staging/dosbox-staging/commit/e131d5624021e6afe088507f7c7526d404f60be9
SRPM URL:
https://github.com/dosbox-staging/dosbox-staging.github.io/releases/download/artifacts/dosbox-staging-0.76.0-2.fc33.src.rpm


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1020292] DO NOT PACKAGE: bitcoin - Peer-to-peer digital currency

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020292

Warren Togami  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|CLOSED  |NEW
 Resolution|DUPLICATE   |---
Summary|Review Request: bitcoin -   |DO NOT PACKAGE: bitcoin -
   |Peer-to-peer digital|Peer-to-peer digital
   |currency|currency



--- Comment #57 from Warren Togami  ---
> I've been packaging the software for myself for a few years now, if there is 
> no answer to this ticket from the original poster I will re-create the review 
> and close this as a duplicate.

Sorry. The original security reasons to strongly request that Fedora not ship
bitcoin have not changed.

I'm working on a new status update and updated upstream recommendation.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1920606] Review Request: golang-github-googlecloudplatform-guest-logging - Logging facade used by GCP guest agents

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1920606

Neal Gompa  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ngomp...@gmail.com
   Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value



--- Comment #1 from Neal Gompa  ---
The "Fedora Account System Username" should be your username in FAS, not your
email address. Could you please edit it to fix that?


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1920606] New: Review Request: golang-github-googlecloudplatform-guest-logging - Logging facade used by GCP guest agents

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1920606

Bug ID: 1920606
   Summary: Review Request:
golang-github-googlecloudplatform-guest-logging -
Logging facade used by GCP guest agents
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: ericed...@google.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Spec URL:
https://github.com/EricEdens/fedora-packages/blob/google-guest-logging/golang-github-googlecloudplatform-guest-logging.spec
SRPM URL: 
 -
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/ericedens/gcp-guest-packages/build/1905931/
 -
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ericedens/gcp-guest-packages/fedora-33-x86_64/01905931-golang-github-googlecloudplatform-guest-logging/
Description: Logging facade for Google Cloud Platform guest agents. Required to
complete .
Fedora Account System Username: ericed...@google.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 1920348] Review Request: mingw-mediawriter - Fedora Media Writer

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1920348

Miro Hrončok  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 CC||mhron...@redhat.com
 Resolution|--- |NOTABUG
Last Closed||2021-01-26 17:30:53



--- Comment #1 from Miro Hrončok  ---
A new review is not needed until the package is retired for 8 weeks. This was
retired for 3 weeks.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1920251] Review Request: python-steam - Python package for interacting with Steam

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1920251

Vitaly Zaitsev  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #4 from Vitaly Zaitsev  ---
These minor issues can be fixed during importing to Fedora SCM. Package
approved.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1920251] Review Request: python-steam - Python package for interacting with Steam

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1920251



--- Comment #3 from Vitaly Zaitsev  ---
> Note: License file steammessages_site_license_pb2.cpython-39.opt-1.pyc is not 
> marked as %license

False positive. Should be ignored.

> # For client
> Requires:   python3dist(gevent-eventemitter) >= 2.1
> Requires:   python3dist(gevent) >= 1.3.0
> Requires:   python3dist(protobuf) >= 3.0.0

Please remove these rows to use dependency auto-generator.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1920251] Review Request: python-steam - Python package for interacting with Steam

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1920251



--- Comment #2 from Vitaly Zaitsev  ---
Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
===
- 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.
  Note: License file steammessages_site_license_pb2.cpython-39.opt-1.pyc is
  not marked as %license
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text


= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
 upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
 licenses manually.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[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.
[x]: 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 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: 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]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
 Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?)
[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

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
 publishes signatures.
 Note: gpgverify is not used.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.

[Bug 1920242] Review Request: python-gevent-eventemitter - EventEmitter using gevent

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1920242

Vitaly Zaitsev  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #4 from Vitaly Zaitsev  ---
> [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.

The external license file should be removed until the upstream will merge your
PR.

All other LGTM. Package approved.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1920242] Review Request: python-gevent-eventemitter - EventEmitter using gevent

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1920242



--- Comment #3 from Vitaly Zaitsev  ---
Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
 upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
 licenses manually.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[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.
[x]: 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 successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package 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]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
 Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?)
[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

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: 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 otherwise
 justified.
[x]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
 publishes signatures.
 Note: gpgverify is not used.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages 

[Bug 1920251] Review Request: python-steam - Python package for interacting with Steam

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1920251

Vitaly Zaitsev  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||vit...@easycoding.org
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|vit...@easycoding.org
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #1 from Vitaly Zaitsev  ---
I will review this package.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1920242] Review Request: python-gevent-eventemitter - EventEmitter using gevent

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1920242

Vitaly Zaitsev  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||vit...@easycoding.org
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|vit...@easycoding.org
   Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #2 from Vitaly Zaitsev  ---
I will review this package.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1897456] Review Request: ghc-OpenGLRaw - A raw binding for the OpenGL graphics system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1897456



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2021-c7e9cdbede has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-c7e9cdbede


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1914292] Review Request: tkrzw - Fast key-value storage

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914292

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |MODIFIED



--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2021-d4545e33b7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-d4545e33b7


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1910392] Review Request: python-build - Simple, correct PEP517 package builder

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1910392



--- Comment #4 from Fabian Affolter  ---
(In reply to code from comment #2)
> This would be a great candidate for using generated BR’s:
> 
> %generate_buildrequires
> %pyproject_buildrequires -x test
> 
> %prep
> 
> -
> 
> It saves you the trouble of manually enumerating, and possibly missing, BR’s
> (and re-doing it for every upstream update), and it automatically puts in
> version requirements too.
> 
> See https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pyproject-rpm-macros for more.

Changed

(In reply to code from comment #3)
> For the typing extra, this should have:
> 
> %{?python_extras_subpkg:%python_extras_subpkg -n python3-%{pypi_name} -i
> %{python3_sitelib}/*.egg-info typing}
> 
> Details at
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/
> #_python_extras.

Added

Koji scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=60540015

%changelog
* Sun Jan 24 2021 Fabian Affolter  - 0.1.0-2
- Switch to pyproject-rpm-macros (#1910392)

Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-build.spec
SRPM URL:
https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-build-0.1.0-2.fc33.src.rpm


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1884608] Review Request: dosbox-staging - DOS/x86 emulator focusing on ease of use

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884608



--- Comment #23 from Kamil Páral  ---
(In reply to Hans de Goede from comment #18)
> Oops, I made a copy and paste error in the Provides/Obsoletes bits, the
> correct lines are:
> 
> Provides:  dosbox = %{version}-%{release}
> Obsoletes: dosbox < %{version}-%{release}

I believe this is not correct. According to the documentation [1], and given
that dosbox's highest NVR is dosbox-0.74.3-6.fc34 [2], I believe it should be:

> Provides:  dosbox = %{version}-%{release}
> Obsoletes: dosbox < 0.74.4

I chose to bump the version field instead of release, because there's a mass
rebuild happening in Rawhide and the release field might be bumped
automatically. Of course this assumes that the dosbox developer will not
package and release 0.74.4 or higher (which is, I assume, agreed on, and the
dosbox package can be removed from Fedora once dosbox-staging is approved and
built).

[1]
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#renaming-or-replacing-existing-packages
[2] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/dosbox

> This is a new dependency for 0.76.0, that's why it was omitted earlier. One 
> thing I forgot to add in spec 0.76.0-1 - we actually depend on FluidSynth >= 
> 2.0 (therefore this spec file won't work for Fedora 32 which ships FluidSynth 
> 1.1). Should I specify the package version in here? There's also a similar 
> story for SDL2 - we specifically depend on >= 2.0.2 (but all Fedora versions 
> provide it).

If you know specific minimum version, I believe it should be explicitly listed,
because it prevents errors. That is nicely illustrated with the Fedora 32
situation - the package requirements should stop an incorrect situation from
happening - like a failed build due to insufficient library versions, or a
completed build but a broken functionality in the final binary. In this case,
either dosbox-staging can't be submitted to Fedora 32, or the FluidSynth
maintainer needs to be asked to update the F32 version to >= 2.0 (which might
or might not be appropriate for a stable Fedora release, that's their area of
expertise). 

Hans, please correct me if I'm wrong about some of that :-)

> Yes, in vanilla DOSBox cursor keys are broken when using Wayland
> ...

Thanks for clarifications about the feature set.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org