[Bug 1933396] Review Request: rust-humantime-serde - Serde support for the `humantime` crate
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933396 --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 --- Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=62757668 -- 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 1933396] New: Review Request: rust-humantime-serde - Serde support for the `humantime` crate
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933396 Bug ID: 1933396 Summary: Review Request: rust-humantime-serde - Serde support for the `humantime` crate 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/rust-humantime-serde.spec SRPM URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rust-humantime-serde-1.0.1-1.fc35.src.rpm Description: Serde support for the `humantime` crate. 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1933395] Review Request: rust-confy - Boilerplate-free configuration management
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933395 --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 --- Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=62757012 -- 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 1933395] New: Review Request: rust-confy - Boilerplate-free configuration management
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933395 Bug ID: 1933395 Summary: Review Request: rust-confy - Boilerplate-free configuration management 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/rust-confy.spec SRPM URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rust-confy-0.4.0-1.fc35.src.rpm Description: Boilerplate-free configuration management. 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1931427] Review Request: rust-rspec - Write Rspec-like tests with stable rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1931427 --- Comment #5 from Sohan Kunkerkar --- (In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #3) > I missed another issue last time: > > The "expectest" feature also will not install. You'll need to either > - package expectest ^0.12 for Fedora, or > - drop the +expectest subpackage, like the +clippy subpackage. > ah, I see > However, it would be good to check whether the package that uses rspec > actually uses the optional "expectest" feature or not before deciding to > drop it. :) > Yup, it's an optional one. I made the necessary changes to address this concern, and also validate it with the mock's `--postinstall` feature. > BTW: I trained myself to use mock's "--postinstall" feature to test this > stuff locally. It will complain if there are missing dependencies. Thanks for the pointers. -- 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 1933315] Review Request: rubygem-rexml - An XML toolkit for Ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933315 Michel Alexandre Salim changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1923630 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1923630 [Bug 1923630] rubygem-prawn-svg: FTBFS in Fedora rawhide/f34 -- 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 1933315] Review Request: rubygem-rexml - An XML toolkit for Ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933315 Michel Alexandre Salim changed: What|Removed |Added Comment|0 |updated --- Comment #0 has been edited --- Spec URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/ruby/rubygem-rexml.spec SRPM URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/ruby/rubygem-rexml-3.2.4-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: An XML toolkit for Ruby. This used to be part of Ruby but is moved out in Ruby 3.0: https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/16485 Fedora Account System Username: salimma -- 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 1933315] New: Review Request: rubygem-rexml - An XML toolkit for Ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933315 Bug ID: 1933315 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-rexml - An XML toolkit for Ruby Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mic...@michel-slm.name QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/ruby/rubygem-rexml.spec SRPM URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/ruby/rubygem-rexml-3.2.4-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: An XML toolkit for Ruby. This used to be part of Ruby but is moved out in Ruby 3.0: https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/16485 Fedora Account System Username: -- 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 1922858] Review Request: zmk - Collection of reusable Makefiles
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922858 --- Comment #14 from Zygmunt Krynicki --- Woot. Thank you for the advice and for your time :) -- 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 1931477] Review Request: python-openant - A python library to communicate with ANT-FS compliant devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1931477 --- Comment #2 from Iztok Fister Jr. --- Hi Aniket! Thank you very much for your quick response. Your comments have recently been incorporated in a new version. Revision is now Online in GH repository. Actually, I checked some similar packages which are associated with udev files. I followed to the specifications of aoetools: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/aoetools/blob/rawhide/f/aoetools.spec -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1917510] Review Request: airspyhf-1.6.8-1 - Host software for Airspy HF+, a software defined radio for the HF and VHF bands
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1917510 --- Comment #8 from Emiliano Gonzalez --- Created fedpkg request-repo airspyhf-1.6.8-1 1917510 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/32360 -- 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 Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Sergio Basto --- (In reply to Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) from comment #4) > But it's possible for a library only binary > package to use lib prefix (and libfoo-devel for the related -devel package). it is possible but is the Debian convention , not the "RedHat" or Fedora convention , and I prefer the RedHat / fedora one . > rpm -qi librttr will give you hint about which source package this librtt > binary package was created from. IMHO , is just less intuitive . > I've found curl package that already follow this convention. (using libcurl > and libcurl-devel). So I don't think this break assumption. Looking for curl.spec I see many things that would change . 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1922858] Review Request: zmk - Collection of reusable Makefiles
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922858 Neal Gompa changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #13 from Neal Gompa --- Everything looks good to me. 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1922858] Review Request: zmk - Collection of reusable Makefiles
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922858
--- Comment #12 from Neal Gompa ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= 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: "Unknown or generated", "GNU Lesser General Public License,
Version 3". 115 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/ngompa/1922858-zmk/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.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[?]: 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 -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
= EXTRA items =
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
---
Checking: zmk-0.5-1.fc35.noarch.rpm
zmk-0.5-1.fc35.src
[Bug 1933216] Review Request: ghc-indexed-traversable - FunctorWithIndex, FoldableWithIndex, TraversableWithIndex
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933216 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added CC|mhill...@redhat.com | --- Comment #2 from Jens Petersen --- Needed by comonad and free (and lens) in Stackage lts-17 https://packdeps.haskellers.com/reverse/indexed-traversable -- 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 1931427] Review Request: rust-rspec - Write Rspec-like tests with stable rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1931427 --- Comment #4 from Fabio Valentini --- BTW: I trained myself to use mock's "--postinstall" feature to test this stuff locally. It will complain if there are missing dependencies. -- 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 1922858] Review Request: zmk - Collection of reusable Makefiles
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922858 --- Comment #11 from Zygmunt Krynicki --- Done, updated both the .spec and the SRPM file. -- 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 --- Comment #4 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) --- Thanks for spotting this issue. I've fixed locally. The packaging guideline enforces the name of the source package to be the same as the archive name. But it's possible for a library only binary package to use lib prefix (and libfoo-devel for the related -devel package). rpm -qi librttr will give you hint about which source package this librtt binary package was created from. I've found curl package that already follow this convention. (using libcurl and libcurl-devel). So I don't think this break assumption. -- 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
--- Comment #3 from Sergio Basto ---
Created attachment 1759462
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1759462&action=edit
rttr.spec.patch
Hi,
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
/usr/share/doc/rttr-doc/rttr-0-9-6/license_8md.html
/usr/share/doc/rttr-doc/rttr-0-9-6/license_page.html
these files are fine
so no issues
but
please fix doc file permissions :
-find __doc -type f -exec chmod 0640 {} ';'
+find __doc -type f -exec chmod 0644 {} ';'
Also notice the name convention is not the standard on Fedora packages should
be rttr-libs and rttr-devel .
--
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 Paul Howarth changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version|perl-Crypt-PBKDF2-0.161520- |perl-Crypt-PBKDF2-0.161520- |12.fc35 |12.fc35 |perl-Crypt-PBKDF2-0.161520- |perl-Crypt-PBKDF2-0.161520- |12.fc34 |12.fc34 ||perl-Crypt-PBKDF2-0.161520- ||12.fc33 ||perl-Crypt-PBKDF2-0.161520- ||12.fc32 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2021-02-26 08:25:30 -- 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 1917089] Review Request: python-doubleratchet - Python implementation of the Double Ratchet algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1917089 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- + package name is OK + latest version + license is acceptable (MIT) + license is specified correctly + builds and installs OK + R/P/BR look OK $ rpmlint results/*rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Package is APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
