[Bug 1932760] Review Request: xisxwayland - Tool to check if the X server is XWayland
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1932760 Peter Hutterer changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1932754 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1932754 [Bug 1932754] X.org Utility Deaggregation - xorg-x11-server-utils -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1932760] New: Review Request: xisxwayland - Tool to check if the X server is XWayland
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1932760 Bug ID: 1932760 Summary: Review Request: xisxwayland - Tool to check if the X server is XWayland Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: peter.hutte...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://people.freedesktop.org/~whot/xisxwayland/xisxwayland.spec SRPM URL: https://people.freedesktop.org/~whot/xisxwayland/xisxwayland-1-1.fc35.src.rpm Description: xisxwayland is a tool to be used within shell scripts to determine whether the X server in use is Xwayland. It exits with status 0 if the server is an Xwayland server and 1 otherwise. Fedora Account System Username: whot Note that this is a package split as part of Bug #1932754. This package used to be part of xorg-x11-server-utils and now becomes its own package. It "Conflicts: xorg-x11-server-utils < 7.7-40" which is to be committed once we're through with all this. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1932734] Review Request: mkfontscale - Tool to generate legacy X11 font system index files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1932734 Peter Hutterer changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1932731 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1932731 [Bug 1932731] X.org Utility Deaggregation - xorg-x11-font-utils -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1910018] Review Request: php-sanmai-phpunit-legacy-adapter - PHPUnit Legacy Versions Adapter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1910018 --- Comment #2 from Remi Collet --- Thanks for the review SCM requests https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/32327 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/32328 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/32329 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/32330 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1932737] Review Request: fonttosfnt - Tool to wrap bdf or pcf bitmap fonts in an sfnt wrapper
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1932737 Peter Hutterer changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1932731 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1932731 [Bug 1932731] X.org Utility Deaggregation - xorg-x11-font-utils -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1932737] New: Review Request: fonttosfnt - Tool to wrap bdf or pcf bitmap fonts in an sfnt wrapper
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1932737 Bug ID: 1932737 Summary: Review Request: fonttosfnt - Tool to wrap bdf or pcf bitmap fonts in an sfnt wrapper Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: peter.hutte...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://people.freedesktop.org/~whot/fonttosfnt/fonttosfnt.spec SRPM URL: https://people.freedesktop.org/~whot/fonttosfnt/fonttosfnt-1.2.1-1.fc35.src.rpm Description: fonttosfnt wraps a set of bdf or pcf bitmap fonts in a sfnt (TrueType or OpenType) wrapper. Fedora Account System Username: whot Note that this is a package split as part of Bug #1932731. This package used to be part of xorg-x11-font-utils and now becomes its own package. It "Conflicts: xorg-x11-font-utils < 7.5-51" which is to be committed once we're through with all this. xorg-x11-font-utils has had Provides: fonttosfnt for years. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1932736] Review Request: bdftopcf - Font compiler for the X server and font server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1932736 Peter Hutterer changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1932731 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1932731 [Bug 1932731] X.org Utility Deaggregation - xorg-x11-font-utils -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1932736] New: Review Request: bdftopcf - Font compiler for the X server and font server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1932736 Bug ID: 1932736 Summary: Review Request: bdftopcf - Font compiler for the X server and font server Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: peter.hutte...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://people.freedesktop.org/~whot/bdftopcf/bdftopcf.spec SRPM URL: https://people.freedesktop.org/~whot/bdftopcf/bdftopcf-1.1-1.fc35.src.rpm Description: bdftopcf is a font compiler for the X server and font server. Fonts in Portable Compiled Format can be read by any architecture, although the file is structured to allow one particular architecture to read them directly without reformatting. This allows fast reading on the appropriate machine, but the files are still portable (but read more slowly) on other machines. Fedora Account System Username: whot Note that this is a package split as part of #1932731. This package used to be part of xorg-x11-font-utils and now becomes its own package. It "Conflicts: xorg-x11-font-utils < 7.5-51" which is to be committed once we're through with all this. xorg-x11-font-utils has had Provides: bdftopcf for years. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1932734] New: Review Request: mkfontscale - Tool to generate legacy X11 font system index files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1932734 Bug ID: 1932734 Summary: Review Request: mkfontscale - Tool to generate legacy X11 font system index files Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: peter.hutte...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://people.freedesktop.org/~whot/mkfontscale/mkfontscale.spec SRPM URL: https://people.freedesktop.org/~whot/mkfontscale/mkfontscale-1.2.1-1.fc35.src.rpm Description: mkfontscale creates the fonts.scale and fonts.dir index files used by the legacy X11 font system. It now includes the mkfontdir script previously distributed separately for compatibility with older X11 versions. Fedora Account System Username: whot Note that this is a package split as part of #1932731. This package used to be part of xorg-x11-font-utils and now becomes its own package. It "Conflicts: xorg-x11-font-utils < 7.5-51" which is to be committed once we're through with all this. xorg-x11-font-utils has had Provides: mkfontscale for years. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1929001] Review Request: python-dbus-next - Zero-dependency DBus library for Python with asyncio support
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1929001 Aleksei Bavshin changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1932728 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1932728 [Bug 1932728] Review Request: sway-systemd - Systemd integration for Sway session -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1932728] Review Request: sway-systemd - Systemd integration for Sway session
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1932728 Aleksei Bavshin changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1929001 Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1929001 [Bug 1929001] Review Request: python-dbus-next - Zero-dependency DBus library for Python with asyncio support -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1932728] New: Review Request: sway-systemd - Systemd integration for Sway session
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1932728 Bug ID: 1932728 Summary: Review Request: sway-systemd - Systemd integration for Sway session Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: alebast...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/alebastr/sway-extras/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02016980-sway-systemd/sway-systemd.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/alebastr/sway-extras/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02016980-sway-systemd/sway-systemd-0.1.1-0.1.fc35.src.rpm Copr URL: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/2016980 Description: The goal of this project is to provide a minimal set of configuration files and scripts required for running Sway in a systemd environment. This includes several areas of integration: - Propagate required variables to the systemd user session environment. - Define sway-session.target for starting user services. - Place GUI applications into a systemd scopes for systemd-oomd compatibility. See following links for the motivation behind a separate project and package: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/sway/pull-request/11 https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/s...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/Z34CVRZLQK6NLQYX2DJWOP7IPJ4XCE7O/ Fedora Account System Username: alebastr -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1908929] Review Request: randy - Conky like app in Rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1908929 Ian Hands changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ipha...@gmail.com Flags||needinfo?(zebo...@gmail.com ||) ||needinfo?(zebo...@gmail.com ||) --- Comment #2 from Ian Hands --- > Please use rust2rpm to generate a standard spec. Do you do this even when its not a Rust lib that you are trying to package? What if its an app that just happens to be written in Rust? I was somewhat confused about the direction to take here. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1910018] Review Request: php-sanmai-phpunit-legacy-adapter - PHPUnit Legacy Versions Adapter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1910018
Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 ---
- Group: is not used in Fedora
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0",
"Unknown or generated". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output
of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/php-sanmai-phpunit-
legacy-adapter/review-php-sanmai-phpunit-legacy-
adapter/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -r
[Bug 1795461] Review Request: practrand - Software package for the Randon number generation & testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795461 --- Comment #14 from Jiri Hladky --- Awesome. I do appreciate that! Jirka -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1917948] Review Request: iceauth - X11 Inter-Client Exchange authority file utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1917948 David Cantrell changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(a...@redhat.com) --- Comment #2 from David Cantrell --- (In reply to David Cantrell from comment #1) > [ ]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. > Note: Sources not installed It does not. > [ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules. Not even Mr. Redenbacher could find one. > [ ]: Package contains no static executables. That is a correct and true statement. > [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets > other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging > Guidelines. It is. MIT. > [ ]: 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. FAIL. Package needs: %license COPYING > [ ]: 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. It does. > [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. FAIL. Package lacks "%license COPYING" > [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. It does. > [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. Correct. > [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. Very much so. > [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. Only the most permissible. > [ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. N/A > [ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package N/A > [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. Correct. > [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory > names). Yes. > [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. Yes. > [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. This is subjective, right? Unfortunately it carries the name "iceauth" and one not familiar with this software might think it's related to Immigration and Customs Enforcement in which case the executable name "iceauth" is even more of a bold statement. However, it being part of Xorg I think it's clear that it is part of the Inter-Client Exchange. I am going to say that it does not generate conflict though the name could, in theory, be pointed to as problem language. > [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. It does. > [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and > Provides are present. N/A > [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. Yes. > [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. You bet! > [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. N/A > [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. Sure. > [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. I know it's not required and know the package does not carry the unknown tag. > [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines Yep. > = 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. License is there, the package needs the %license directive. > [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). They are. > [ ]: Package functions as described. Yes. > [ ]: Latest version is packaged. I assume so. > [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. Correct. > [ ]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream > publishes signatures. > Note: gpgverify is not used. N/A > [ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains > translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. N/A > [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported > architectures. It does. > [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. N/A > [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed > files. Sure. > [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Done. Other notes: 1) There's an empty %doc directive. Shouldn't that be "%doc ChangeLog INSTALL README" or something along those lines? 2) There is no %license line for COPYING (noted above). 3) Are the BuildRequires wrapped in "%if 0/%endif" required for anything? Can they be removed? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscr
[Bug 1917948] Review Request: iceauth - X11 Inter-Client Exchange authority file utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1917948
--- Comment #1 from David Cantrell ---
This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are
also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla:
- Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such
a list, create one.
- Add your own remarks to the template checks.
- Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not
listed by fedora-review.
- Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this
case you could also file a bug against fedora-review
- Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines
in what you paste.
- Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint
ones are mandatory, though)
- Remove this text
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[ ]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
Note: Sources not installed
[ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[ ]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[ ]: 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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version
[Bug 1932616] Review Request: rttr - Run Time Type Reflection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1932616
--- Comment #1 from Sergio Basto ---
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 license_8md.html is not marked as %license
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text
- Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 4608000 bytes in 255 files.
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/#_documentation
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Expat License", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Expat
License", "*No copyright* Public domain". 71 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sergio/fedora-
scm/1932616-rttr/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/rttr
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/rttr
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[-]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
Note: Package contains font files
[-]: 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{n
[Bug 1917948] Review Request: iceauth - X11 Inter-Client Exchange authority file utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1917948 David Cantrell 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1917948] Review Request: iceauth - X11 Inter-Client Exchange authority file utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1917948 David Cantrell changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|dcantr...@redhat.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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1928111] Review Request: perl-Crypt-PBKDF2 - The PBKDF2 password hashing algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1928111 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-1e98a98ae0 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1768027] Review Request: signify - Sign and encrypt files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1768027 --- Comment #23 from Marcus Müller --- OK, then that's no big deal, as indeed, the SRPM build works beautifully on all rawhide archs. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1932616] Review Request: rttr - Run Time Type Reflection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1932616 Sergio Basto changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ser...@serjux.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ser...@serjux.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1932616] New: Review Request: rttr - Run Time Type Reflection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1932616 Bug ID: 1932616 Summary: Review Request: rttr - Run Time Type Reflection Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: kwiz...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://dl.kwizart.net/review/rttr.spec SRPM URL: https://dl.kwizart.net/review/rttr-0.9.6-2.fc33.src.rpm Description: Run Time Type Reflection Fedora Account System Username: kwizart koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=62649886 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1768027] Review Request: signify - Sign and encrypt files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1768027 Tom "spot" Callaway changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(spo...@gmail.com) | |needinfo?(spo...@gmail.com) | --- Comment #22 from Tom "spot" Callaway --- Hmm. I always do scratch builds with the SRPM and not a git checkout, so I'm not sure I can help you there. Did the SRPM scratch-build succeed? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1928966] Review Request: python-botocore-2 - Low-level, data-driven core of boto 3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1928966 --- Comment #2 from Tom "spot" Callaway --- Update to 2.0.0dev96. New SRPM: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/python-botocore-2-2.0.0dev96-1.fc33.src.rpm New SPEC: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/python-botocore-2.spec Builds are in copr for testing: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/spot/aws-cli-2/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1928967] Review Request: aws-cli-2 - Universal Command Line Environment for AWS, Version 2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1928967 --- Comment #2 from Tom "spot" Callaway --- New SRPM: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/aws-cli-2.spec New SPEC: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/aws-cli-2-2.1.28-1.fc33.src.rpm Builds are in my copr for testing: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/spot/aws-cli-2/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1929991] Review Request: python-backrefs - A wrapper around re and regex that adds additional back references
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1929991
--- Comment #7 from Miro Hrončok ---
- nothing provides python3.Xdist(backrefs[extras]) needed by
python3-backrefs-5.0.1-3.fc35.noarch
1) The X was just a placeholder, if you need to require the package, use
`Requires: python3-%{pypi_name}+extras = %{version}-%{release}` instead.
2) I don't understand the hard dependency, why is it needed?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1917958] Review Request: xhost - X11 server host-based authorization tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1917958 Adam Jackson changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: X11 server |Review Request: xhost - X11 |host-based authorization|server host-based |tool|authorization tool -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1917958] Review Request: X11 server host-based authorization tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1917958 Adam Jackson changed: What|Removed |Added Comment|0 |updated --- Comment #0 has been edited --- Spec URL: https://ajax.fedorapeople.org/deagg/server-utils/xhost.spec SRPM URL: https://ajax.fedorapeople.org/deagg/server-utils/xhost-1.0.7-1.fc32.src.rpm Description: The xhost program is used to add and delete host names or user names to the list allowed to make connections to the X server. Fedora Account System Username: ajax -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1917986] Review Request: xrdb - X resource database utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1917986 --- Comment #2 from Adam Jackson --- There is a semantic change from xorg-x11-server-utils here. Formerly we would Require: mcpp, which was a workaround for gcc's cpp package being huge. This is now Recommends: cpp instead, since nobody really wants to maintain mcpp and the cpp dependency is somewhat optional anyway. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1917974] Review Request: xrandr - X11 Resize and Rotate utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1917974 --- Comment #1 from Adam Jackson --- Note that this is a bugfix upgrade from the xrandr 1.5.0 that is currently packaged in xorg-x11-server-utils, which is fine, and allows us to drop the patches that we were applying. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1918078] Review Request: luit - Locale and ISO 2022 support for Unicode terminals
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1918078
--- Comment #2 from Adam Jackson ---
(In reply to Artur Frenszek-Iwicki from comment #1)
> >Source0:https://invisible-island.net/datafiles/release/luit.tar.gz
> This will always point to the latest release, which makes reproducing builds
> harder.
> How about using "ftp://ftp.invisible-island.net/luit/luit-%{version}.tgz";
> instead?
ftp isn't exactly a reliable step, if "reproducing the build" is an issue. I
found what looks like a stable https url with the version number though.
> >%install
> >rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
> Don't remove the buildroot at start of %install.
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_tags_and_sections
Sure, done. spec and srpm updated, same URLs as above.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1917955] Review Request: sessreg - Manage utmp/wtmp entries for non-init clients
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1917955 --- Comment #1 from Adam Jackson --- Note that xorg-x11-server-utils (which currently supplies this utility) currently contains sessreg 1.1.0, but this package bumps it to 1.1.2. This is mostly so I can drop the patches we were applying, which are upstream now, but the additional changes between 1.1.0 to 1.1.2 should be harmless-to-beneficial. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1932395] Review Request: perl-CPAN-02Packages-Search - Search Perl modules in 02packages.details.txt
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1932395 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1931967 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1931967 [Bug 1931967] perl-App-cpm-0.997003 is available -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1932395] New: Review Request: perl-CPAN-02Packages-Search - Search Perl modules in 02packages.details.txt
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1932395 Bug ID: 1932395 Summary: Review Request: perl-CPAN-02Packages-Search - Search Perl modules in 02packages.details.txt Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ppi...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-CPAN-02Packages-Search/perl-CPAN-02Packages-Search.spec SRPM URL: https://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-CPAN-02Packages-Search/perl-CPAN-02Packages-Search-0.001-1.fc35.src.rpm Description: CPAN::02Packages::Search allows you to search Perl modules in the de facto standard CPAN index file 02packages.details.txt. Fedora Account System Username: ppisar -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1932375] New: Review Request: php-laminas-hydrator3 - Laminas Framework Hydrator component v3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1932375 Bug ID: 1932375 Summary: Review Request: php-laminas-hydrator3 - Laminas Framework Hydrator component v3 Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: fed...@famillecollet.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://git.remirepo.net/cgit/rpms/php/laminas/php-laminas-hydrator3.git/plain/php-laminas-hydrator3.spec?id=8c4030ce1ebbae6b48173736b1204ea8cb4033e2 SRPM URL: https://rpms.remirepo.net/SRPMS/php-laminas-hydrator3-3.2.0-1.remi.src.rpm Description: Laminas\Hydrator provides utilities for mapping arrays to objects, and vice versa, including facilities for filtering which data is mapped as well as providing mechanisms for mapping nested structures. Documentation: https://docs.laminas.dev/laminas-hydrator/ Fedora Account System Username: remi -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1885503] Review Request: python-habapp - Automation with MQTT and/or openHAB
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885503 Susi Lehtola changed: What|Removed |Added CC|susi.leht...@iki.fi | Flags|needinfo?(susi.lehtola@iki. | |fi) | --- Comment #4 from Susi Lehtola --- python-pydantic updated in 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1911391] Review Request: golang-github-gdamore-tcell-2 - Alternate terminal package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1911391 Elliott Sales de Andrade changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1931184 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1931184 [Bug 1931184] golang-github-gdamore-tcell-2.2.0 is available -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1768027] Review Request: signify - Sign and encrypt files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1768027 Marcus Müller changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(marcus@hostalia.d |needinfo?(spo...@gmail.com) |e) | --- Comment #21 from Marcus Müller --- @spo...@gmail.com I might need an adult to help me through this (it's been a year since I last touched fedpkg/koji), because `fedpkg scratch-build` leads to a failing build attempt: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=62627512 The problem seems to be that unlike my previous scratch-build (from a year ago... shame on me), this fails to git clone, checkout.log tells me ``` $ git clone -n https://src.fedoraproject.org/g...@github.com:marcusmueller/signify-package.git /var/lib/mock/f35-build-25888185-3053391/root/chroot_tmpdir/scmroot/signify-package Cloning into '/var/lib/mock/f35-build-25888185-3053391/root/chroot_tmpdir/scmroot/signify-package'... fatal: repository 'https://src.fedoraproject.org/g...@github.com:marcusmueller/signify-package.git/' not found ``` For now I'm `fedpkg scratch-build --srpm signify-30-1.fc35.src.rpm`, but this is a bit confusing. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1768027] Review Request: signify - Sign and encrypt files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1768027 Marcus Müller changed: What|Removed |Added CC||s...@linuxpower.org Flags||needinfo?(spot@linuxpower.o ||rg) ||needinfo?(spo...@gmail.com) --- Comment #20 from Marcus Müller --- @spo...@gmail.com on 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1860811] Review Request: ServiceReport - a tool to validate and repair system configuration for specific purposes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860811 Hanns-Joachim Uhl changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1932197 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1795461] Review Request: practrand - Software package for the Randon number generation & testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795461 --- Comment #13 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) --- Hi Jirka, Thanks very much! I'll try to complete the review in the coming weeks. 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
