[Bug 1951628] Review Request: ghc-wai-websockets - Provide a bridge between WAI and the websockets package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1951628 --- Comment #3 from Jens Petersen --- https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/33698 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/33699 -- 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 1951628] Review Request: ghc-wai-websockets - Provide a bridge between WAI and the websockets package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1951628 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED Fixed In Version||ghc-wai-websockets-3.0.1.2- ||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 1951398] Review Request: ghc-bower-json - Read bower.json from Haskell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1951398 --- Comment #4 from Jens Petersen --- https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/33696 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/33697 -- 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 1951398] Review Request: ghc-bower-json - Read bower.json from Haskell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1951398 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED Fixed In Version||ghc-bower-json-1.0.0.1-1.fc ||35 -- 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 1947685] Review Request: ocaml-atd - Static Types for Json APIs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1947685 Michel Alexandre Salim changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST --- Comment #9 from Michel Alexandre Salim --- Thanks! https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/33695 -- 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 1928004] Review Request: python-slixmpp-omemo - OMEMO plugin for Slixmpp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1928004 Matthieu Saulnier changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2021-04-25 21:22:02 -- 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 1942312] Review Request: poezio-omemo - OMEMO plugin for the Poezio XMPP client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1942312 Bug 1942312 depends on bug 1928004, which changed state. Bug 1928004 Summary: Review Request: python-slixmpp-omemo - OMEMO plugin for Slixmpp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1928004 What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1950923] Review Request: python-fireflyalgorithm - Implementation of Firefly Algorithm in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1950923 --- Comment #6 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) --- Looks good but I'm wondering if we need to add the provides/obsoletes to the python3 sub-package too. I installed the current package: $ rpm -q python3-FireflyAlgorithm python3-FireflyAlgorithm-0.0.4-1.fc34.noarch then, I tried to install the f34 build of the renamed package. It installs fine, yes but does not upgrade the previous one---which is should, no? $ sudo dnf install ./python3-fireflyalgorithm-0.0.4-2.fc34.noarch.rpm [sudo] password for asinha: Last metadata expiration check: 1:57:57 ago on Sun 25 Apr 2021 15:41:30 BST. Dependencies resolved. = Package Architecture Version Repository Size = Installing: python3-fireflyalgorithmnoarch 0.0.4-2.fc34@commandline 13 k Transaction Summary = Install 1 Package This is because python3 subpackage does not obsolete/provide the older python3 subpackage: $ rpm -qp --provides ./python3-fireflyalgorithm-0.0.4-2.fc34.noarch.rpm python-fireflyalgorithm = 0.0.4-2.fc34 python3-fireflyalgorithm = 0.0.4-2.fc34 python3.9-fireflyalgorithm = 0.0.4-2.fc34 python3.9dist(fireflyalgorithm) = 0.0.4 python3dist(fireflyalgorithm) = 0.0.4 $ rpm -qp --obsoletes ./python3-fireflyalgorithm-0.0.4-2.fc34.noarch.rpm # no output Can you check if in your test it upgraded the older package, or do you now have both installed? 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 1923830] Review Request: Diffuse - Diff Utility (Re-introducing Retired Package)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1923830
--- Comment #10 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) ---
Almost there, a little more work needed :)
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_macros
^
Please use one form, for consistency.
- 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 COPYING is not marked as %license
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text
^
Please mark the license file using %license.
- Package does not use a name that already exists.
Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/diffuse
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names
^
This is OK, since this is a re-review
- Directory ownership issues, please see below.
- Please prefer this form for the Source etc:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_git_tags
- please do not mix tabs and space: best to only use one form consistently
- if it's a noarch package, you do not need to disable debuginfo. Please remove
the line
- the appdata files now go to the metainfodir etc. Please see this:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AppData/
- please correct the older changelog entries
- your spec/srpm don't match: the srpm version is 0.6.0-61? It should be
0.6.0-1?
= 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 General Public License, Version
2", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2". 101 files
have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/asinha/dump/fedora-reviews/1923830-diffuse/licensecheck.txt
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/gnome/help/diffuse/it,
/usr/share/gnome/help/diffuse/ru, /usr/share/omf/diffuse,
/usr/share/gnome/help/diffuse, /usr/share/gnome/help/diffuse/C,
/usr/share/gnome/help/diffuse/cs
^ Please check these directories for ownership. Nothing seems to own
/usr/share/gnome/help, so this package should own it.
Reference:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_file_and_directory_ownership
Since the help files use gnome-help
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gnome/help/diffuse,
/usr/share/gnome/help/diffuse/ru, /usr/share/gnome/help/diffuse/C,
/usr/share/gnome/help, /usr/share/gnome/help/diffuse/cs,
/usr/share/omf/diffuse, /usr/share/gnome/help/diffuse/it
^
See point above.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
^
Looks fine. I'd add a blank like after each changelog entry for readability.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
^
You can use %{name} in the files section etc. too
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 4 files.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
^
Some work needed :)
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at
[Bug 1953254] Review Request: SLiMgui - an evolutionary simulation framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1953254 bryce.a.car...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(package-review@li ||sts.fedoraproject.org) --- Comment #3 from bryce.a.car...@gmail.com --- @ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
needinfo requested: [Bug 1953254] Review Request: SLiMgui - an evolutionary simulation framework
Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review bryce.a.car...@gmail.com has asked Package Review for needinfo: Bug 1953254: Review Request: SLiMgui - an evolutionary simulation framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1953254 --- Comment #3 from bryce.a.car...@gmail.com --- @ ___ 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 1953340] Review Request: dovecot-fts-xapian - Xapian plugin for Dovecot
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1953340 Joan Moreau changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: Dovecot FTS |Review Request: |Xapian plugin - Xapian |dovecot-fts-xapian - Xapian |plugin for Dovecot |plugin for Dovecot -- 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 1953340] Review Request: Dovecot FTS Xapian plugin - Xapian plugin for Dovecot
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1953340 Joan Moreau changed: What|Removed |Added Comment|0 |updated --- Comment #0 has been edited --- Spec URL: https://github.com/grosjo/fts-xapian/blob/master/PACKAGES/RPM/fts-xapian.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/grosjo/fts-xapian/blob/master/PACKAGES/RPM/dovecot-fts-xapian-1.4.9b-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: This project intends to provide a straightforward, simple and maintenance free, way to configure FTS plugin for Dovecot, leveraging the efforts by the Xapian.org team. This effort came after Dovecot team decided to deprecate "fts_squat" included in the dovecot core, and due to the complexity of the Solr plugin capabilitles, un-needed for most users. This is my first package, and I am seeking a sponsor. Fedora Account System Username: grosjo Blocks : FE-NEEDSPONSOR -- 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 1953340] Review Request: Dovecot FTS Xapian plugin - Xapian plugin for Dovecot
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1953340 Joan Moreau changed: What|Removed |Added Version|rawhide |33 -- 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 1953340] Review Request: Dovecot FTS Xapian plugin - Xapian plugin for Dovecot
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1953340 Joan Moreau changed: What|Removed |Added Version|33 |rawhide -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1953340] Review Request: Dovecot FTS Xapian plugin - Xapian plugin for Dovecot
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1953340 Joan Moreau changed: What|Removed |Added Comment|0 |updated --- Comment #0 has been edited --- Spec URL: https://github.com/grosjo/fts-xapian/blob/master/PACKAGES/RPM/fts-xapian.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/grosjo/fts-xapian/blob/master/PACKAGES/RPM/dovecot-fts-xapian-1.4.9a-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: This project intends to provide a straightforward, simple and maintenance free, way to configure FTS plugin for Dovecot, leveraging the efforts by the Xapian.org team. This effort came after Dovecot team decided to deprecate "fts_squat" included in the dovecot core, and due to the complexity of the Solr plugin capabilitles, un-needed for most users. This is my first package, and I am seeking a sponsor. Fedora Account System Username: grosjo Blocks : FE-NEEDSPONSOR -- 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 1953340] Review Request: Dovecot FTS Xapian plugin - Xapian plugin for Dovecot
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1953340 Joan Moreau changed: What|Removed |Added Version|rawhide |33 -- 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 1953340] Review Request: Dovecot FTS Xapian plugin - Xapian plugin for Dovecot
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1953340 Joan Moreau changed: What|Removed |Added Comment|0 |updated --- Comment #0 has been edited --- Spec URL: https://github.com/grosjo/fts-xapian/blob/master/PACKAGES/RPM/fts-xapian.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/grosjo/fts-xapian/blob/master/PACKAGES/RPM/dovecot-fts-xapian-1.4.9a-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: This project intends to provide a straightforward, simple and maintenance free, way to configure FTS plugin for Dovecot, leveraging the efforts by the Xapian.org team. This effort came after Dovecot team decided to deprecate "fts_squat" included in the dovecot core, and due to the complexity of the Solr plugin capabilitles, un-needed for most users. This is my first package, and I am seeking a sponsor. Fedora Account System Username: grosjo -- 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 1953340] New: Review Request: Dovecot FTS Xapian plugin - Xapian plugin for Dovecot
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1953340 Bug ID: 1953340 Summary: Review Request: Dovecot FTS Xapian plugin - Xapian plugin for Dovecot Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: j...@grosjo.net QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://github.com/grosjo/fts-xapian/blob/master/PACKAGES/RPM/fts-xapian.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/grosjo/fts-xapian/blob/master/PACKAGES/RPM/dovecot-fts-xapian-1.4.9a-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: This project intends to provide a straightforward, simple and maintenance free, way to configure FTS plugin for Dovecot, leveraging the efforts by the Xapian.org team. This effort came after Dovecot team decided to deprecate "fts_squat" included in the dovecot core, and due to the complexity of the Solr plugin capabilitles, un-needed for most users. 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 1913870] Review Request: qvge - visual graph editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913870
--- Comment #12 from Ben Beasley ---
> This was not discussed because Fedora/EPEL repos have no appropriate packages
> and I have no plan to package them (see my note №1)
There’s no need to argue with me; I didn’t write the guidelines. Sometimes the
upstream contact feels like a formality, with little hope of any change, but it
is unambiguously required:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bundling. If you
don’t plan to unbundle, this route is your only option. It’s not hard to do.
> There are no such system libs, see above.
Right. If upstream supported building with external dependencies, you would
have to package them. Since it doesn’t, you don’t have to; but you have to
follow https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bundling.
> qvge *not* installs any library but statically compiled with them in-place.
> Just one binary and nothing else.
> So I cannot provide anything but qvge itself.
The guidelines explain this, and I did too. The *virtual* Provides just allows
tracking bundled libraries. It does not require you to offer a usable copy of
the library, to build it separately, or anything else. That’s why you are
providing “bundled(foo) = ${bundled-version}”, or just “bundled(foo)” if the
bundled library is unversioned, not providing “foo” itself.
The guidelines around this are only a screenful. The process is simpler than it
used to be and no longer requires petitioning the FPC. You’re going to have to
slow down and take the time to understand your options. Having to deal with
bundled dependencies is normal, and I don’t think you’re going to find a
reviewer who decides you don’t have to do it the same way other packagers have
to.
I think I’m done commenting here unless there’s a new, concrete question I can
answer, or an updated submission for 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 1876864] Review Request: kealib - KEA is an HDF5 Based Raster File Format as a GDAL plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876864 --- Comment #10 from markusN --- Thanks for your pointer. Unfortunately I seem to have missed the train: fedpkg request-repo kealib 1876864 Could not execute request_repo: The Bugzilla bug's review was approved over 60 days ago Could you please re-approve it? Sorry about this... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1913870] Review Request: qvge - visual graph editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913870 --- Comment #11 from Eugene A. Pivnev --- (In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #10) Ok, let's go: > 1. Upstream does not support building with an external copy of the > dependency. If it did, you would NOT be permitted to bundle, no matter how > inconvenient the extra packaging might be. This was not discussed because Fedora/EPEL repos have no appropriate packages and I have no plan to package them (see my note №1) > 2. You have publicly contacted upstream about a path to supporting system > libraries; and if upstream refused, recorded it in a comment or in a source > file referenced from a comment adjacent to the virtual Provides. There are no such system libs, see above. > 3. You have added the appropriate virtual Provides to your spec file. > These are just metadata, which allow bundling to be tracked. qvge *not* installs any library but statically compiled with them in-place. Just one binary and nothing else. So I cannot provide anything but qvge itself. -- 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 1913870] Review Request: qvge - visual graph editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913870 --- Comment #10 from Ben Beasley --- Please re-read the guidelines around bundled dependencies carefully; I think you have some misunderstandings. When you bundle dependencies, Fedora doesn’t require you to install the bundled dependencies as “extra libs”, i.e., separate shared libraries. It requires the following: 1. Upstream does not support building with an external copy of the dependency. If it did, you would NOT be permitted to bundle, no matter how inconvenient the extra packaging might be. 2. You have publicly contacted upstream about a path to supporting system libraries; and if upstream refused, recorded it in a comment or in a source file referenced from a comment adjacent to the virtual Provides. 3. You have added the appropriate virtual Provides to your spec file. These are just metadata, which allow bundling to be tracked. Having followed these steps, you are NOT required to patch the build system in any way. I know dealing with bundled dependencies is a perennial pain, but you have to fully understand the guidelines around them and pick one of the permissible options. -- 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 1913870] Review Request: qvge - visual graph editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913870 Eugene A. Pivnev changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(ti.eugene@gmail.c | |om) | --- Comment #9 from Eugene A. Pivnev --- (In reply to Otto Urpelainen from comment #6) > Do you still intend to complete this package? I can do the review — unless > Ben wants to, it seems like he is reviewing, but the fedora-review tag has > not been set. The bundled dependencies issue still needs to be resolved. The problem is in 3rd-parties/*: - qprocessinfo (https://github.com/baldurk/qprocessinfo) - qsint-widgets (part of https://sourceforge.net/projects/qsint) - qtpropertybrowser (part of https://github.com/qtproject/qt-solutions) These are old, mostly orphaned libraries. But they are 3rd-parties. Solitions: 1. Make these things as new packages then push qvga using them as system libs. It is really hard because requires many-many patches without developers support. And at the end of ends nobody needs them. 2. Make them as bundled libs and install as extra libs in qvge.spec. As qvge linked statically with them it is a bulk of job too to remake compiling and installation scripts. After this we will have those 3rdparties as separate libs installing during qvge installation. And nobody needs them after this too. But Fedora packaging policy requires to choose only one from 2 above. I don't know what to do with this. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1953326] Review Request: rust-futures-test - Common utilities for testing components built off futures-rs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1953326 --- Comment #1 from Fabio Valentini --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=66655237 -- 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 1953326] New: Review Request: rust-futures-test - Common utilities for testing components built off futures-rs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1953326 Bug ID: 1953326 Summary: Review Request: rust-futures-test - Common utilities for testing components built off futures-rs Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review 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/rust-futures-test.spec SRPM URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/rust-futures-test-0.3.14-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: Common utilities for testing components built off futures-rs. Fedora Account System Username: decathorpe -- 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 1876864] Review Request: kealib - KEA is an HDF5 Based Raster File Format as a GDAL plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876864 --- Comment #9 from Artur Frenszek-Iwicki --- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/New_package_process_for_existing_contributors Start from step 7. tl;dr: $ fedpkg request-repo kealib 1876864 # Requests are processed manually - wait for confirmation e-mail $ fedpkg clone kealib $ cd kealib/ $ fedpkg import PATH_TO_SRPM -- 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 1876864] Review Request: kealib - KEA is an HDF5 Based Raster File Format as a GDAL plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876864 --- Comment #8 from markusN --- Thanks for approving the package. What is the next step here? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
