[Bug 1949867] Review Request: ghc-koji - Koji buildsystem XML-RPC API bindings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1949867 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-9c9fb40601 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-9c9fb40601 -- 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 1906287] Review Request: python-xeddsa - Python implementation of the XEdDSA signature scheme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1906287 --- Comment #7 from Matthieu Saulnier --- Hi, I made new release. The doc is empty so I didn't add a doc subpackage. - Use %%pytest to run tests suite Done. Spec URL: https://fantom.fedorapeople.org/python-xeddsa.spec SRPM URL: https://fantom.fedorapeople.org/python-xeddsa-0.6.0~beta-3.fc33.src.rpm copr build: f33/f34/rawhide: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/fantom/poezio-omemo/build/2139740/ -- 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 1949867] Review Request: ghc-koji - Koji buildsystem XML-RPC API bindings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1949867 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED Fixed In Version||ghc-koji-0.0.1-1.fc35 -- 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 1916510] Review Request: python-x3dh - Python implementation of the Extended Triple Diffie-Hellman key agreement protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1916510 --- Comment #6 from Matthieu Saulnier --- Hi, I've made new release with your remarks. However, the doc is empty so I skipped doc generation to avoid empty package. - Short the Summary Done. - Add nacl python module as build requirement and runtime requirement I discovered by running the library that it needs the "nacl" python module. The dependancy was not automaticaly added for previous builds. - Use %%pytest to run tests suite Done. Spec URL: https://fantom.fedorapeople.org/python-x3dh.spec SRPM URL: https://fantom.fedorapeople.org/python-x3dh-0.5.9~beta-4.fc33.src.rpm copr build: rawhide/f33: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/fantom/poezio-omemo/build/2139727/ -- 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 1950828] New: Review Request: python-op1repacker - Tool for unpacking, modding and repacking OP-1 firmware
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1950828 Bug ID: 1950828 Summary: Review Request: python-op1repacker - Tool for unpacking, modding and repacking OP-1 firmware Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: dcava...@fb.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-op1repacker/python-op1repacker.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-op1repacker/python-op1repacker-0.2.6-1.fc35.src.rpm Description: OP-1 Firmware Repacker is the tool for unpacking and repacking OP-1 synthesizer firmware. This allows you to access and modify the files within the firmware as well as repacking the files into a valid installable firmware file. Ready made mods are also included in the tool. Lastly it is also possible to analyze unpacked firmware to get information such as build version, build time and date, bootloader version etc. Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1950735] Review Request: python-pydyf - low-level PDF creator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1950735 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 --- 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 1950781] Review Request: highfive - Header-only C++ HDF5 interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1950781 --- Comment #2 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) --- Thanks for another review Robert-Andre :) I've updated the spec to include the full doc-subpackage in the conditional now. Requesting SCM. Updated spec/srpm: Spec URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/highfive/highfive.spec SRPM URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/highfive/highfive-2.2.2-1.fc34.src.rpm Cheers, Ankur -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1950735] Review Request: python-pydyf - low-level PDF creator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1950735 --- Comment #2 from Felix Schwarz --- Thank you for your review. updated spec file: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fschwarz/pydyf/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02139250-python-pydyf/python-pydyf.spec SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fschwarz/pydyf/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02139250-python-pydyf/python-pydyf-0.0.2-2.fc35.src.rpm I hope I addressed all the issues you raised. -- 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 1950781] Review Request: highfive - Header-only C++ HDF5 interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1950781
Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 ---
- I would include the whole package within %if %{with docs} here:
%if %{with docs}
%files doc
%license LICENSE
%doc %{_vpath_builddir}/doc/html
%endif
Same above
%if %{with docs}
%packagedoc
Summary:Documentation for %{name}
BuildArch: noarch
%descriptiondoc
Documentation for %{name}
%endif
Package approved. Please fix the aforementioned issue before import.
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]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[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* Boost Software License
1.0", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "Boost Software
License 1.0". 31 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/highfive/review-
highfive/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[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.
[-]: 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 20480 bytes in 3 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:
[x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query up
[Bug 1950759] Review Request: gsl-lite - Header-only version of ISO C++ Guidelines Support Library (GSL)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1950759
Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 ---
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]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[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", "Expat License", "Boost Software
License 1.0". 29 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/gsl-lite/review-gsl-
lite/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/include/gsl(gsl-devel,
guidelines-support-library-devel)
[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.
[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.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[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 112640 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 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
[Bug 1950735] Review Request: python-pydyf - low-level PDF creator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1950735
Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
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 🐧 ---
- Not needed anymore in Fedora:
%{?python_enable_dependency_generator}
- This is automatic since F33:
%{?python_provide:%python_provide python3-%{pypi_name}}
See
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_the_py_provides_macro
- Consider adding README.rst to the %doc
-
%check
%{__python3} -m pytest
→
%check
%pytest
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: "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "Unknown or
generated", "GNU Affero General Public License, Version 3", "*No
copyright* GNU Affero General Public License". 15 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/python-pydyf/review-python-
pydyf/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.
[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]: 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
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/
[Bug 1950624] Review Request: python-neurom - Neuronal Morphology Analysis Tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1950624 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-3e408bb956 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-2021-3e408bb956 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-3e408bb956 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 1922858] Review Request: zmk - Collection of reusable Makefiles
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922858 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-9229df7c09 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-2021-9229df7c09` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-9229df7c09 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 1949892] Review Request: python-plotly - An open-source, interactive data visualization library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1949892 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-14ec9fcdb8 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-2021-14ec9fcdb8 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-14ec9fcdb8 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 1950781] Review Request: highfive - Header-only C++ HDF5 interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1950781 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1276941 (fedora-neuro) Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276941 [Bug 1276941] Fedora NeuroImaging and NeuroScience tracking bug -- 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 1950781] New: Review Request: highfive - Header-only C++ HDF5 interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1950781 Bug ID: 1950781 Summary: Review Request: highfive - Header-only C++ HDF5 interface Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: sanjay.an...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/highfive/highfive.spec SRPM URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/highfive/highfive-2.2.2-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: HighFive is a modern header-only C++11 friendly interface for libhdf5. HighFive supports STL vector/string, Boost::UBLAS, Boost::Multi-array, Eigen and Xtensor. It handles C++ from/to HDF5 with automatic type mapping. HighFive does not require additional libraries (see dependencies) and supports both HDF5 thread safety and Parallel HDF5 (contrary to the official hdf5 cpp) It integrates nicely with other CMake projects by defining (and exporting) a HighFive target. Design: - Simple C++-ish minimalist interface - No other dependency than libhdf5 - Zero overhead - Support C++11 Feature support: - create/read/write files, datasets, attributes, groups, dataspaces. - automatic memory management / ref counting - automatic conversion of std::vector and nested std::vector from/to any dataset with basic types - automatic conversion of std::string to/from variable length string dataset - selection() / slice support - parallel Read/Write operations from several nodes with Parallel HDF5 - Advanced types: Compound, Enum, Arrays of Fixed-length strings, References etc... (see ChangeLog) Fedora Account System Username: ankursinha -- 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 1950759] Review Request: gsl-lite - Header-only version of ISO C++ Guidelines Support Library (GSL)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1950759 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1276941 (fedora-neuro) Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276941 [Bug 1276941] Fedora NeuroImaging and NeuroScience tracking bug -- 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 1950759] New: Review Request: gsl-lite - Header-only version of ISO C++ Guidelines Support Library (GSL)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1950759 Bug ID: 1950759 Summary: Review Request: gsl-lite - Header-only version of ISO C++ Guidelines Support Library (GSL) Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: sanjay.an...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/gsl-lite/gsl-lite.spec SRPM URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/gsl-lite/gsl-lite-0.38.0-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: gsl-lite is an implementation of the C++ Core Guidelines Support Library originally based on Microsoft GSL. Fedora Account System Username: ankursinha -- 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 1950735] New: Review Request: python-pydyf - low-level PDF creator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1950735 Bug ID: 1950735 Summary: Review Request: python-pydyf - low-level PDF creator Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: fschw...@fedoraproject.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fschwarz/pydyf/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02139019-python-pydyf/python-pydyf.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fschwarz/pydyf/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02139019-python-pydyf/python-pydyf-0.0.2-1.fc35.src.rpm Description: pydyf is a low-level PDF generator written in Python and based on PDF specification 1.7. Fedora Account System Username: fschwarz This package will be needed for newer versions of WeasyPrint (https://github.com/Kozea/WeasyPrint). The current releases of pydyf are basically "pre-release" versions but I like to get this in Fedora already so we can switch to newer versions of WeasyPrint as soon as possible. This should reduce the maintenance effort for WeasyPrint significantly as we can drop dependencies to cairo. -- 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 1950624] Review Request: python-neurom - Neuronal Morphology Analysis Tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1950624 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-3e408bb956 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-3e408bb956 -- 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
