[Bug 1936137] Review Request: rust-tokio-native-tls - Implementation of TLS/SSL streams for Tokio using native-tls
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936137 Igor Raits changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||igor.ra...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|igor.ra...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1933471] Review Request: golang-github-hub - A command-line tool that makes git easier to use with GitHub
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933471 --- Comment #22 from Phil Dibowitz --- Filed unretire request: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/10052 -- 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 1933471] Review Request: golang-github-hub - A command-line tool that makes git easier to use with GitHub
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933471 Michel Alexandre Salim changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #21 from Michel Alexandre Salim --- Looks good to me! 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 1887470] Review Request: libtraceevent - library to parse raw trace event formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887470 --- Comment #12 from Qiyu Yan --- And for the license entry, please use LGPLv2+ and GPLv2+ -- 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 1887470] Review Request: libtraceevent - library to parse raw trace event formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887470
Qiyu Yan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #11 from Qiyu Yan ---
Package Approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[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.
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", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General
Public License, Version 2.1", "GNU General Public License, Version 2",
"GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1". 48 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/yan/review/1887470-libtraceevent/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
/usr/include/traceevent(trace-cmd-devel), /usr/lib64/traceevent(trace-
cmd-libs, perf), /usr/lib64/traceevent/plugins(perf)
submitter will fix those in other packages
[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.
explict conflict will be removed
[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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[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 860160 bytes in 32 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 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 a
[Bug 1933471] Review Request: golang-github-hub - A command-line tool that makes git easier to use with GitHub
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933471 --- Comment #20 from Phil Dibowitz --- Spec URL: https://phildev.net/fedora/golang-github-hub.spec SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/9524/63239524/golang-github-hub-2.14.2-6.fc35.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1933471] Review Request: golang-github-hub - A command-line tool that makes git easier to use with GitHub
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933471
--- Comment #19 from Michel Alexandre Salim ---
Ah, there's a special macro, %dir, you can use to just own the directory and
not all the files inside recursively.
so e.g.
%dir %{_datadir}/zsh
%dir %{_datadir}/zsh/site-functions
%{_datadir}/zsh/site-functions/_hub
you can also just do
%{_datadir}/zsh
but I think being explicit is better
--
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 1933471] Review Request: golang-github-hub - A command-line tool that makes git easier to use with GitHub
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933471 --- Comment #18 from Phil Dibowitz --- Spec URL: https://phildev.net/fedora/golang-github-hub.spec SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/4179/63234179/golang-github-hub-2.14.2-5.fc35.src.rpm OK not sure how but I had a tarball with garbage in it that was getting sucked in. The sources are the same now: ``` [phil@fedora review-golang-github-hub]$ ls -l srpm-unpacked/hub-2.14.2.tar.gz -rw-r--r--. 1 phil phil 2080107 Mar 7 00:48 srpm-unpacked/hub-2.14.2.tar.gz [phil@fedora review-golang-github-hub]$ ls -l upstream/hub-2.14.2.tar.gz -rw-r--r--. 1 phil phil 2080107 Mar 7 00:48 upstream/hub-2.14.2.tar.gz ``` I added the dirs that were unowned, but of course that adds warnings about how those directories are owned by other packages. But I think the shell-completions should be part of the core package. Relatedly the dirs it complained were unowned, now that I've owned them, it's telling me they're listed twice, but they're not. I also rm -rf vendor and rm -rf bundle in prep now so those are for sure not used. -- 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 1936138] New: Review Request: wyhash - No hash function is perfect, but some are useful
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936138 Bug ID: 1936138 Summary: Review Request: wyhash - No hash function is perfect, but some are useful Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: c...@musicinmybrain.net QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/wyhash.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/wyhash-final1-1.20210306gitfinal.fc33.src.rpm Description: No hash function is perfect, but some are useful. wyhash and wyrand are the ideal 64-bit hash function and PRNG respectively: solid: wyhash passed SMHasher, wyrand passed BigCrush, practrand. portable: 64-bit/32-bit system, big/little endian. fastest: Efficient on 64-bit machines, especially for short keys. simplest: In the sense of code size. This package provides version “final1” of wyhash. Fedora Account System Username: music This is a simple header-only C library (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_packaging_header_only_libraries) that has somewhat awkward versioning, which I think I have handled reasonably. -- 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 1933471] Review Request: golang-github-hub - A command-line tool that makes git easier to use with GitHub
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933471 --- Comment #17 from Michel Alexandre Salim --- So this mostly looks good to go, with a few exceptions: - the tarball in the SRPM is *huge* compared to the tarball I download directly with `spectool -gf`. Might want to try to see if `spectool -gf golang-github-hub.spec && mv hub*.tar.gz ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES && rpmbuild -bs golang-github-hub.spec` generates a correct SRPM? My hunch is that given the package previously existed, somehow you're getting an old tarball checked into the Fedora lookaside cache - directory ownership: for the shell completions and Vim files, you need to either own the directories or split off the files into subpackages that depend on vim, zsh and fish. The former is probably more straightforward - the vendor directory contains Golang modules that are bundled with this package; keeping it this way used to require an FPC exception (and fedora-review still says so). I don't see any filed for the old package: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issues?search_pattern=hub&status=Closed Ideally, try and see if the package can be built without it? That might require some changes to the build scripts. And... it also bundles Ruby gems in bundle/ :( See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bundling -- at the very least you'd have to declare which modules get bundled (and at which version) so in case there are security vulnerabilities the package can be flagged as needing to be updated. Package Review == Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: === - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ => golang, not applicable = MUST items = C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed => going to guess not applicable [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [-]: Package contains no static executables. => golang, everything is static [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages => Koji build has been done by packager [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [?]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0", "Do What The Fuck You Want To Public License, Version 2", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License". 627 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/1933471-golang-github- hub/srpm-unpacked/review-golang-github-hub/licensecheck.txt => the issues seem to be the vendored modules [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/zsh, /usr/share/zsh/site-functions, /usr/share/vim, /usr/share/vim/vimfiles/ftdetect, /usr/share/vim/vimfiles/syntax, /usr/share/fish/completions, /usr/share/fish, /usr/share/vim/vimfiles => two approaches here. Either own the directories, or split off zsh, fish, vim support into subpackages. owning the directories is probably easiest, it's fine if they are owned by multiple packages (removing the last one will make RPM clean up and remove the directory) [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. => that vendor directory [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. [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. => the binary RPM is not renamed, the source is [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 just
[Bug 1925761] Review Request: python-reedsolo - Pure-Python Reed Solomon encoder/decoder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925761 --- Comment #11 from c...@musicinmybrain.net --- After all, it’s not like the looser glob is going to match anything unexpected in practice. -- 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 1925761] Review Request: python-reedsolo - Pure-Python Reed Solomon encoder/decoder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925761 c...@musicinmybrain.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(code@musicinmybra | |in.net) | --- Comment #10 from c...@musicinmybrain.net --- That’s what I would have done too! -- 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 1936137] Review Request: rust-tokio-native-tls - Implementation of TLS/SSL streams for Tokio using native-tls
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936137 Fabio Valentini changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1911528, 1907658 Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1907658 [Bug 1907658] rust-reqwest-0.11.1 is available https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1911528 [Bug 1911528] rust-hyper-tls-0.5.0 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 1936137] New: Review Request: rust-tokio-native-tls - Implementation of TLS/SSL streams for Tokio using native-tls
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936137 Bug ID: 1936137 Summary: Review Request: rust-tokio-native-tls - Implementation of TLS/SSL streams for Tokio using native-tls Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: decatho...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/packages/rust-tokio-native-tls.spec SRPM URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/packages/rust-tokio-native-tls-0.3.0-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: Implementation of TLS/SSL streams for Tokio using native-tls giving an implementation of TLS for nonblocking I/O streams. Fedora Account System Username: decathorpe koji scratch build for rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=63227616 -- 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 1935650] Review Request: rubygem-ffi-rzmq-core - This gem provides only the FFI wrapper for the ZeroMQ (0mq) networking library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1935650 --- Comment #3 from Jarek Prokop --- update spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/pvalena/rubygems/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02058689-rubygem-ffi-rzmq-core/rubygem-ffi-rzmq-core.spec updated srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/pvalena/rubygems/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02058689-rubygem-ffi-rzmq-core/rubygem-ffi-rzmq-core-1.0.7-1.fc35.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1935650] Review Request: rubygem-ffi-rzmq-core - This gem provides only the FFI wrapper for the ZeroMQ (0mq) networking library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1935650 --- Comment #2 from Jarek Prokop --- (In reply to Pavel Valena from comment #1) > Can we depend on versioned library "so file" instead? (That's the preferred > way of specifying dependencies AFAIK.) > > Like in this commit: > https://github.com/fedora-distgit/rubygem-ffi-rzmq-core/commit/ > c0729fb1c3a2f4c5c225addfd3e07bb8de490f1b#diff- > 4fe66120347be998c33ea765bccd78806cd3ebf6cc7eafef37bf2841fabbb0ec > (Yes, we do want that, on purpose.) Yes, you are right, depending on libzmq.so.5 like that does what we want. > > As there's no binary extension, > ``` > BuildArch: noarch > ``` Yes, that is specified correctly. > we need to specify so arch-specific dependencies with richdeps (if > libffi...). On the upside, there's no need for the patch. There is because the library is using hardcoded to search for `libzmq.so`[0] which is only in the `zeromq-devel` and that package pulls in many unnecessary devel dependencies (and libzmq.so is not present not even via symlink in the bare `zeromq` package). [0] the line gets expanded into `libzmq.so` specifically, so if we require `libzmq.so.5` in spec it would pull in zeromq, but it would not work. [0] https://github.com/chuckremes/ffi-rzmq-core/blob/master/lib/ffi-rzmq-core/libzmq.rb#L39 -- 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 1936125] New: Review Request: mingw-librttopo - MinGW Windows librttopo library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936125 Bug ID: 1936125 Summary: Review Request: mingw-librttopo - MinGW Windows librttopo library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: manisan...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-librttopo.spec SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-librttopo-1.1.0-1.fc35.src.rpm Description: MinGW Windows librttopo library Fedora Account System Username: smani -- 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 1913737] Review Request: playonlinux - Graphical front-end for Wine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913737 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-524d233b97 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-524d233b97 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-524d233b97 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1919704] Review Request: kirc - Tiny IRC client written in POSIX C99
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919704 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-855cb3af6b has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-855cb3af6b` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-855cb3af6b See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1935650] Review Request: rubygem-ffi-rzmq-core - This gem provides only the FFI wrapper for the ZeroMQ (0mq) networking library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1935650 Pavel Valena changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pval...@redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Pavel Valena --- Can we depend on versioned library "so file" instead? (That's the preferred way of specifying dependencies AFAIK.) Like in this commit: https://github.com/fedora-distgit/rubygem-ffi-rzmq-core/commit/c0729fb1c3a2f4c5c225addfd3e07bb8de490f1b#diff-4fe66120347be998c33ea765bccd78806cd3ebf6cc7eafef37bf2841fabbb0ec (Yes, we do want that, on purpose.) As there's no binary extension, ``` BuildArch: noarch ``` we need to specify so arch-specific dependencies with richdeps (if libffi...). On the upside, there's no need for the patch. -- 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 1910504] Review Request: libucl - Universal configuration library parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1910504
--- Comment #8 from Timothée Floure ---
SPEC URL:
https://git.sr.ht/~fnux/hikari-rpm/blob/3fbdef61709ccb7102cffe3ccc6f39b78ed84f37/libucl/libucl.spec
SRPM URL:
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/7366/63207366/libucl-0.8.1-2.fc33.src.rpm
> The upstream package contains bindings for Python, Lua, and Haskell. All of
> these would be useful in Fedora. I think the package is incomplete without
> these language bindings.
I built the python bindings since it was a low-hanging fruit. I'll build the
lua and haskell ones later on / on demand, if needed.
> “V=1 make %{?_smp_mflags}” would be better expressed as “%make_build”, and
> “V=1 make %{?_smp_mflags} check” would be better expressed as “%make_build
> check”.
Fixed.
> An accepted change for Fedora 34 is that packages using make must BR it
> explicitly (“BuildRequires: make”). The guidelines have not yet been updated.
Fixed.
> Bundled libraries.
The build system is a pain and does not seem to eat includes properly. I kept
the partially-bundled libraries in but marked themo so.
--
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 1910504] Review Request: libucl - Universal configuration library parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1910504 Timothée Floure changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1936080 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936080 [Bug 1936080] Review Request: hikari - Stacking Wayland compositor with tiling capabilities -- 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 1936080] Review Request: hikari - Stacking Wayland compositor with tiling capabilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936080 Timothée Floure changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1910504 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1910504 [Bug 1910504] Review Request: libucl - Universal configuration library parser -- 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 1936080] Review Request: hikari - Stacking Wayland compositor with tiling capabilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936080 Timothée Floure changed: What|Removed |Added Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1936080] New: Review Request: hikari - Stacking Wayland compositor with tiling capabilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936080 Bug ID: 1936080 Summary: Review Request: hikari - Stacking Wayland compositor with tiling capabilities Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: timothee.flo...@posteo.net QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://git.sr.ht/~fnux/hikari-rpm/blob/3fbdef61709ccb7102cffe3ccc6f39b78ed84f37/hikari/hikari.spec SRPM URL: https://paste.gnugen.ch/paste/lKBT Description: Hikari is a stacking Wayland compositor with additional tiling capabilities, it is heavily inspired by the Calm Window manager (cwm(1)). Its core concepts are views, groups, sheets and the workspace. Fedora Account System Username: fnux -- 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 1884085] Review Request: prewikka-updatedb - Database update scripts for prewikka
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884085 Thomas Andrejak changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2021-03-06 10:59:54 -- 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 1936059] Review Request: python-pathvalidate - Library to sanitize/validate a string such as filenames/file-paths/etc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936059 Jonny Heggheim changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1935858 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1935858 [Bug 1935858] F35FailsToInstall: electron-cash -- 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 1919639] Review Request: DOSBox-X - DOS/x86 emulator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919639 --- Comment #16 from Robert --- Ok, done. This includes a small patch to fix the s390x build issue. There are no ExclusiveArch or ExcludeArch statements in the spec file any longer. SPEC and SRPM: https://github.com/rderooy/dosbox-x-rpm F33 build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=63196099 F34 build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=63196166 -- 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 1936059] New: Review Request: python-pathvalidate - Library to sanitize/validate a string such as filenames/file-paths/etc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936059 Bug ID: 1936059 Summary: Review Request: python-pathvalidate - Library to sanitize/validate a string such as filenames/file-paths/etc Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: heg...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/python-pathvalidate.spec SRPM URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/python-pathvalidate-2.3.2-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: Library to sanitize/validate a string such as filenames/file-paths/etc. Fedora Account System Username: jonny -- 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 1936059] Review Request: python-pathvalidate - Library to sanitize/validate a string such as filenames/file-paths/etc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936059 --- Comment #1 from Jonny Heggheim --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=63195408 -- 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 1936055] Review Request: php-pecl-xmlrpc - Functions to write XML-RPC servers and clients
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936055 Remi Collet changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1935865 Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value --- Comment #1 from Remi Collet --- Koji scratch build https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=63189132 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1935865 [Bug 1935865] F35FailsToInstall: moodle -- 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 1936055] New: Review Request: php-pecl-xmlrpc - Functions to write XML-RPC servers and clients
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936055 Bug ID: 1936055 Summary: Review Request: php-pecl-xmlrpc - Functions to write XML-RPC servers and clients 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://rpms.remirepo.net/temp/php-pecl-xmlrpc.spec SRPM URL: https://rpms.remirepo.net/temp/php-pecl-xmlrpc-1.0.0~rc2-2.fedora.src.rpm Description: This extension provides functions to write XML-RPC servers and clients. You can find more information about XML-RPC at http://www.xmlrpc.com/, and more documentation on this extension and its functions at https://www.php.net/xmlrpc. The extension is unbundled from php-src as of PHP 8.0.0, because the underlying libxmlrpc has obviously been abandoned. It is recommended to reevaluate using this extension. 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
