[Bug 1955394] Review Request: qatzip - Intel® QuickAssist Technology (QAT) QATzip Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1955394
--- Comment #8 from Neal Gompa ---
(In reply to zm627 from comment #7)
> Thank you Neal!
>
> However I'm a little confused with the -libs subpackage. Would you like to
> provide more information about it?
>
> What I got from your comment is that it's better to split the two .so files
> into two packages. The main package contains the .so.1.0.4 and the -libs
> package contains the .so.1 (version number is an example here based on the
> current upstream release version).
> Finally we should have totally 3 packages, the main package which is qatzip
> with .so.1.0.4, the -libs package qatzip-libs with .so.1, and the devel
> package qatzip-devel with .so.
> The libs subpackage should have dependency on the main package.
>
> Would you like to correct me if I'm wrong? Thanks!
Basically, it should look like this:
%packagelibs
Summary:Libraries for the qatzip package
%descriptionlibs
This package contains libraries for applications to use
the QATzip APIs.
%files libs
%{_libdir}/libqatzip.so.%{libqatzip_soversion}
%{_libdir}/libqatzip.so.%{version}
Additionally, the main and devel packages should have a dependency on the libs
package, like so:
Requires: %{name}-libs%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
--
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 1953633] Review Request: debugedit - Tools for debuginfo creation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1953633
--- Comment #26 from Neal Gompa ---
(In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #25)
> (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #24)
> > I noticed that this is still an issue in the file list:
> >
> > > %{_bindir}/find-debuginfo.sh
> > > [...]
> > > %{_mandir}/man1/find-debuginfo.sh.1*
> >
> > Please fix this upstream before 1.0 release.
>
> You mean the .sh extension?
> Yes, this is upstream bug:
> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27640
> I hope we can simply change it to find-debuginfo, but I want to double check
> what that means for rpm compatibility first.
It doesn't mean anything for RPM compatibility, since we already macroize its
usage and can replace it with any path we want. We'll just adjust RPM to point
to new paths and be done with it.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1944408] Review Request: rust-libsystemd-sys - FFI bindings to libsystemd and libelogind
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1944408 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-5bac42dc9d 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-2021-5bac42dc9d \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-5bac42dc9d 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 1950559] Review Request: mock-centos-sig-configs - Mock configs for CentOS SIGs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1950559 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2021-c2e62ff231 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1955394] Review Request: qatzip - Intel® QuickAssist Technology (QAT) QATzip Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1955394 --- Comment #7 from zm627 --- Thank you Neal! However I'm a little confused with the -libs subpackage. Would you like to provide more information about it? What I got from your comment is that it's better to split the two .so files into two packages. The main package contains the .so.1.0.4 and the -libs package contains the .so.1 (version number is an example here based on the current upstream release version). Finally we should have totally 3 packages, the main package which is qatzip with .so.1.0.4, the -libs package qatzip-libs with .so.1, and the devel package qatzip-devel with .so. The libs subpackage should have dependency on the main package. Would you like to correct me if I'm wrong? Thanks! -- 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 1944403] Review Request: rust-enum-repr - Derive enum repr conversions compatible with type aliases.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1944403 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2021-05-06 01:00:54 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-85e685ea5d has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1941896] Review Request: rust-rudo - rudo is a small equivalent of sudo writen in rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1941896 Bug 1941896 depends on bug 1944403, which changed state. Bug 1944403 Summary: Review Request: rust-enum-repr - Derive enum repr conversions compatible with type aliases. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1944403 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- 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 1944412] Review Request: rust-utf8-cstr - Type wrappers promising null termination and utf-8 validity. The intersection of `std::ffi::CStr` and `str`
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1944412 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2021-05-06 01:00:48 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-6575e60828 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1941896] Review Request: rust-rudo - rudo is a small equivalent of sudo writen in rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1941896 Bug 1941896 depends on bug 1944412, which changed state. Bug 1944412 Summary: Review Request: rust-utf8-cstr - Type wrappers promising null termination and utf-8 validity. The intersection of `std::ffi::CStr` and `str` https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1944412 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- 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 1952243] Review Request: toml11 - TOML for Modern C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1952243 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-92b3a04aef has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1955394] Review Request: qatzip - Intel® QuickAssist Technology (QAT) QATzip Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1955394 zm627 changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(zheng...@intel.co | |m) | --- Comment #6 from zm627 --- Thanks for your quick reply, Ben! We'll revise the spec according to your comments. Here's my reply inline with your comments. > Fedora build flags are not honored. For an autotools configure script, the > best choice would be to replace We'll try to revise the configuration script to take environment variables. > You should provide all of the installation directories explicitly even though > the defaults seem to be OK on x86_64. Will fix in next version of spec. > There are upstream tests, but no %check section. If there are any that can be > run as an unprivileged user without special hardware, please add a %check > section and run them. Otherwise, please add a brief comment explaining why > this is not possible. We'll look into this issue and see if this section is needed, though currently we have a software fallback for no hardware issue. Thank you for your example of this section! > Did you want to install the contents of the config_file/ directory? > You could do something like this if you did. We don't have the plan to include the contents in the config_file as I know. Since the package works with the intel-qatlib package, all the configuration is set by that package for the upstream version. Thanks! -- 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 1944422] Review Request: rust-systemd - A rust interface to libsystemd/libelogind provided APIs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1944422 Bug 1944422 depends on bug 1944412, which changed state. Bug 1944412 Summary: Review Request: rust-utf8-cstr - Type wrappers promising null termination and utf-8 validity. The intersection of `std::ffi::CStr` and `str` https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1944412 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- 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 1952243] Review Request: toml11 - TOML for Modern C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1952243 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2021-05-06 00:53:22 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-cc87f93d4e has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1944392] Review Request: rust-build-env - Extract information about the build process from the environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1944392 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-4413a4cf10 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1955394] Review Request: qatzip - Intel® QuickAssist Technology (QAT) QATzip Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1955394 Neal Gompa changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ngomp...@gmail.com --- Comment #5 from Neal Gompa --- Please also split out the libraries present in the main package into a -libs subpackage so that multilib package filtering works correctly. -- 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 1953633] Review Request: debugedit - Tools for debuginfo creation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1953633
--- Comment #25 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #24)
> I noticed that this is still an issue in the file list:
>
> > %{_bindir}/find-debuginfo.sh
> > [...]
> > %{_mandir}/man1/find-debuginfo.sh.1*
>
> Please fix this upstream before 1.0 release.
You mean the .sh extension?
Yes, this is upstream bug:
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27640
I hope we can simply change it to find-debuginfo, but I want to double check
what that means for rpm compatibility first.
--
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 1953633] Review Request: debugedit - Tools for debuginfo creation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1953633
--- Comment #24 from Neal Gompa ---
I noticed that this is still an issue in the file list:
> %{_bindir}/find-debuginfo.sh
> [...]
> %{_mandir}/man1/find-debuginfo.sh.1*
Please fix this upstream before 1.0 release.
--
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 1953633] Review Request: debugedit - Tools for debuginfo creation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1953633 Neal Gompa changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #23 from Neal Gompa --- This looks as good as it's going to get, so... 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 1953633] Review Request: debugedit - Tools for debuginfo creation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1953633
--- Comment #22 from Neal Gompa ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: 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: "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU Lesser General
Public License, Version 2.1", "Unknown or generated", "GNU General
Public License v3.0 or later", "[generated file]", "GNU General Public
License, Version 3 GNU General Public License, Version 2", "FSF
Unlimited License (with Retention) GNU General Public License v2.0 or
later [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]",
"*No copyright* [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or
later [generated file]", "Expat License [generated file]", "GNU
General Public License v2.0 or later", "GNU Library General Public
License v2 or later". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/ngompa/1953633-debugedit/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]: %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.
[-]: 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]: 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 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version
[Bug 1953633] Review Request: debugedit - Tools for debuginfo creation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1953633 --- Comment #21 from Mark Wielaard --- There is now an upstream 0.2 release, new spec and srpm are here: https://fedorapeople.org/~mjw/debugedit.spec https://fedorapeople.org/~mjw/debugedit-0.2-1.fc33.src.rpm For an 1.0 release there are just some upstream fixes for rpm integration left. But I believe the Fedora spec is ready now. Are there any issues left to resolve before this can be given an 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 1944554] Review Request: perl-Glib-IO - Perl binding to the GIO library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1944554 Michal Josef Spacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-Glib-IO-0.001-1.fc35 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2021-05-05 17:49:48 -- 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 1955394] Review Request: qatzip - Intel® QuickAssist Technology (QAT) QATzip Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1955394
Ben Beasley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(zheng...@intel.co
||m)
--- Comment #4 from Ben Beasley ---
Thanks. This is a high-quality package with just a couple of changes needed
before I can approve it. Thanks for taking the time to include this software in
the official repositories.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= Issues =
- Fedora build flags are not honored. For an autotools configure script, the
best choice would be to replace
./configure --prefix=%{_prefix} --enable-symbol
with
%configure --enable-symbol
However, since you have a custom configure script that uses different
options, and since it does not pick up environment variables, your best bet
is probably to set the necessary variables this way:
%set_build_flags
./configure --prefix=%{_prefix} --enable-symbol
and then adjust your configure script to respect the CFLAGS/LDFLAGS from the
environment.
- You should provide all of the installation directories explicitly even though
the defaults seem to be OK on x86_64.
./configure \
--bindir=%{_bindir} \
--sharedlib-dir=%{_libdir} \
--includedir=%{_includedir} \
--mandir=%{_mandir} \
--prefix=%{_prefix} \
--enable-symbol
- There are upstream tests, but no %check section. If there are any that can be
run as an unprivileged user without special hardware, please add a %check
section and run them. Otherwise, please add a brief comment explaining why
this is not possible.
= Notes (no change is required for approval) =
- Did you want to install the contents of the config_file/ directory?
You could do something like this if you did.
%packageexamples
Summary:Sample configuration files for the libqatzip package
BuildArch: noarch
License:BSD or GPLv2
%descriptionexamples
This package contains sample configuration files for the libqatzip package.
%files examples
%license LICENSE config_file/LICENSE.GPL
%doc config_file/*/
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "Unknown or
generated", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "BSD 3-clause
"New" or "Revised" License GNU General Public License, Version 2". 4
files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/reviewer/1955394-qatzip/licensecheck.txt
Files licensed (BSD or GPLv2) are not currently installed, so
“License: BSD” is correct. If this changes, I suggest installing the
(BSD or GPLv2) files in a subpackage. See
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_multiple_licensing_scenarios.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: %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.
[!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
Should use RPM macros to provide all installation directories to configure
script.
[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]: Useful -debuginfo package or jus
[Bug 1955394] Review Request: qatzip - Intel® QuickAssist Technology (QAT) QATzip Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1955394 Ben Beasley changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|c...@musicinmybrain.net 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 1956841] Review Request: python-podman - RESTful API for Podman
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1956841 Jhon Honce changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(jho...@redhat.com | |) | --- Comment #6 from Jhon Honce --- requirements.txt can be adjusted and code tested. Backporting could cause features to be lost. @l...@redhat.com and I agreed to wait on outcome of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1889391 -- 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 1956841] Review Request: python-podman - RESTful API for Podman
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1956841 Lokesh Mandvekar changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1889391 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1889391 [Bug 1889391] python-urllib3-1.26.4 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 1949058] Review Request: pcm - Processor Counter Monitor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1949058 --- Comment #10 from Prarit Bhargava --- Roman, please reach out to 'de...@lists.fedoraproject.org' and let them know you have a new package that needs Proven Packager sign-off. Include a description of this package and a link to this BZ. Thanks, P. -- 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 1256492] Review Request: python-libnuma - Python bindings for the numactl library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1256492 Guy Streeter changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(guy.streeter@gmai | |l.com) | --- Comment #24 from Guy Streeter --- I have retired. Nobody ever used this but me, and I don't any more. -- 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 Otto Urpelainen changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? ||needinfo?(ti.eugene@gmail.c ||om) --- Comment #15 from Otto Urpelainen --- I have now made a complete review. Findings: 1. I think the License should be "(MIT and LGPLv3 and BSD)". The licensing guidelines are not crystal clear on this, but I read them as a) no parenthesis: multiple files, each with one of the listed licenses, b) with parenthesis: one file containing parts with each of the licenses. 2. All these licenses require including a copy of the license when distributing the code. So, either the LICENSE file needs to be updated to contain licenses for everything that is bundled, or some other way invented to get the all the licenses and copyright notices included in %license. I think a pull request is needed upstream to get this right. 3. Annoyingly, AppStream metadata also contains a field for liceses, project_license. So qvge.appdata.xml must also be updated to list the actual license that has now been determined. That goes naturally to the same pull request where licensing is otherwise made compatible with Fedora packaging. 4. Add "BuildRequires: make". This should be explictly listed nowadays if make is used. 5. fedora-review complains: "Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/mime/packages, /usr/share/mime". Add directories must have assigned ownership, in this case the correct solution would be to add "Requires: shared-mime-info", which is a "filesystem package" owning those directories. Reference: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_file_and_directory_ownership 6. There is no man page, you should get in contact with the upstream about adding such. Pull request is best, but an issue will also do as usual. Reference: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_manpages 7. Since running as many tests as possible in %check is recommended, perhaps add a comment line there explaining that upstream does not provide any? Reference: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_test_suites I am confident in my review, but if Ben still have some comments, they are welcome of course. -- 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 1954004] Review Request: perl-JSON-Create - Create JSON
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1954004 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2021-05-05 14:16:58 -- 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 1954004] Review Request: perl-JSON-Create - Create JSON
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1954004 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED Fixed In Version||perl-JSON-Create-0.32-1.fc3 ||5 --- Comment #6 from Petr Pisar --- Thank you for the review and the repository. -- 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 1953229] Review Request: fruit - UCI chess engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1953229 --- Comment #4 from Ben Beasley --- Hmm, you’re right. I’ve compared the result of `rpm2cpio fruit-2.1-1.fc35.src.rpm | pax -r` and `spectool -g fruit.spec`, and all the files are the same: > $ sha256sum -b fruit.spec srpm/fruit.spec */02-simple_go.patch */fruit.6 > */fruit_21_linux.zip */Dann_Books.zip > 2d3db2694e3cf93f5095b693d8a7602b221dbd42c96e94d95e2ad77931ac2055 *fruit.spec > 2d3db2694e3cf93f5095b693d8a7602b221dbd42c96e94d95e2ad77931ac2055 > *srpm/fruit.spec > 6bf0350503f5c4bd2ef89d3a47edce1b13f2505cc6f641b5584459f92ce752ff > *spec/02-simple_go.patch > 6bf0350503f5c4bd2ef89d3a47edce1b13f2505cc6f641b5584459f92ce752ff > *srpm/02-simple_go.patch > 30dffc119319016aa1159645a2c692a7487668ae3b0ae28f3ef1e154ba48a957 *spec/fruit.6 > 30dffc119319016aa1159645a2c692a7487668ae3b0ae28f3ef1e154ba48a957 *srpm/fruit.6 > ad13f6099dc2acebf0112c36cc7d38fd4009316ad60ecc294c5e828380dcd2c0 > *spec/fruit_21_linux.zip > ad13f6099dc2acebf0112c36cc7d38fd4009316ad60ecc294c5e828380dcd2c0 > *srpm/fruit_21_linux.zip > c20d707dce0463aaa2106eb024e52ee1da95888673a01f740414ce44f0e40559 > *spec/Dann_Books.zip > c20d707dce0463aaa2106eb024e52ee1da95888673a01f740414ce44f0e40559 > *srpm/Dann_Books.zip So fedora-review really is doing something strange here. Maybe I really haven’t ever tried it on a package with a zip-file source before. I’m afraid I don’t have time to review this in the next couple of weeks—hopefully somebody else will pick it up! -- 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 1955394] Review Request: qatzip - Intel® QuickAssist Technology (QAT) QATzip Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1955394 --- Comment #3 from zm627 --- I have some issues uploading files to fedora people space. So I create a project in fedora copr system. Here's the link to the srpm package: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/zm627/qatzip/fedora-33-x86_64/02166305-qatzip/qatzip-1.0.4-1.fc33.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 1256492] Review Request: python-libnuma - Python bindings for the numactl library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1256492 Jiri Kastner changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(guy.streeter@gmai ||l.com) --- Comment #23 from Jiri Kastner --- @guy.stree...@gmail.com can you please update with current python guidelines? (python2 removal and so on) if this request is still actual for you? also python-hwloc -- 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 1956841] Review Request: python-podman - RESTful API for Podman
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1956841 Lokesh Mandvekar changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(l...@redhat.com) |needinfo?(jho...@redhat.com ||) --- Comment #5 from Lokesh Mandvekar --- (In reply to Jindrich Novy from comment #4) > $ rpmlint python-podman-3.1.1.3-2.fc32.src.rpm > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. > > $ rpmlint python-podman.spec > 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. > > $ rpmlint python-podman-3.1.1.3-2.fc32.noarch.rpm > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. > > $ sudo dnf install python-podman-3.1.1.3-2.fc32.noarch.rpm > Last metadata expiration check: 1:56:14 ago on Wed 05 May 2021 10:16:09 AM > CEST. > Error: > Problem: conflicting requests > - nothing provides (python3.8dist(urllib3) >= 1.26.4 with > python3.8dist(urllib3) < 1.27) needed by python-podman-3.1.1.3-2.fc32.noarch > - nothing provides python3.8dist(requests) >= 2.24 needed by > python-podman-3.1.1.3-2.fc32.noarch > - nothing provides python3.8dist(toml) >= 0.10.2 needed by > python-podman-3.1.1.3-2.fc32.noarch > (try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages) > > Lokesh, is this expected? I suspect that's because we don't have a new enough python-urllib3 anywhere on fedora. https://github.com/containers/podman-py/blob/master/requirements.txt v/s https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=15601 Jhon, can the urllib3 requirement be relaxed to accommodate for current version in fedora? -- 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 1822561] Review Request: wget2 - the successor of GNU Wget, a file and recursive website downloader
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822561 Neal Gompa changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(ngomp...@gmail.co | |m) | --- Comment #6 from Neal Gompa --- Anna, we don't generally ship libtool archives, so those should be deleted. The end result would be that we wouldn't have a -static subpackage. Please delete libtool archives and remove the -static subpackage. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#packaging-static-libraries -- 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 canceled: [Bug 1822561] Review Request: wget2 - the successor of GNU Wget, a file and recursive website downloader
Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Neal Gompa has canceled Package Review 's request for Neal Gompa 's needinfo: Bug 1822561: Review Request: wget2 - the successor of GNU Wget, a file and recursive website downloader https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822561 --- Comment #6 from Neal Gompa --- Anna, we don't generally ship libtool archives, so those should be deleted. The end result would be that we wouldn't have a -static subpackage. Please delete libtool archives and remove the -static subpackage. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#packaging-static-lib raries ___ 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 1256492] Review Request: python-libnuma - Python bindings for the numactl library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1256492 Jiri Kastner changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(cz172...@gmail.co | |m) | -- 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 canceled: [Bug 1256492] Review Request: python-libnuma - Python bindings for the numactl library
Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Jiri Kastner has canceled Package Review 's request for Jiri Kastner 's needinfo: Bug 1256492: Review Request: python-libnuma - Python bindings for the numactl library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1256492 ___ 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 1126100] Review Request: disco - Erlang/Python Lightweight Map Reduce Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1126100 José Matos changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Assignee|jama...@fc.up.pt|nob...@fedoraproject.org Flags|needinfo?(jama...@fc.up.pt) | Last Closed||2021-05-05 10:42:44 --- Comment #16 from José Matos --- I will close this since it is opened for so long. Feel free to reopen it if you interested in getting this process to continue. -- 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 canceled: [Bug 1126100] Review Request: disco - Erlang/Python Lightweight Map Reduce Framework
Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review José Matos has canceled Package Review 's request for José Matos 's needinfo: Bug 1126100: Review Request: disco - Erlang/Python Lightweight Map Reduce Framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1126100 --- Comment #16 from José Matos --- I will close this since it is opened for so long. Feel free to reopen it if you interested in getting this process to continue. ___ 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 1956841] Review Request: python-podman - RESTful API for Podman
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1956841 Jindrich Novy changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(l...@redhat.com) --- Comment #4 from Jindrich Novy --- $ rpmlint python-podman-3.1.1.3-2.fc32.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint python-podman.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint python-podman-3.1.1.3-2.fc32.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ sudo dnf install python-podman-3.1.1.3-2.fc32.noarch.rpm Last metadata expiration check: 1:56:14 ago on Wed 05 May 2021 10:16:09 AM CEST. Error: Problem: conflicting requests - nothing provides (python3.8dist(urllib3) >= 1.26.4 with python3.8dist(urllib3) < 1.27) needed by python-podman-3.1.1.3-2.fc32.noarch - nothing provides python3.8dist(requests) >= 2.24 needed by python-podman-3.1.1.3-2.fc32.noarch - nothing provides python3.8dist(toml) >= 0.10.2 needed by python-podman-3.1.1.3-2.fc32.noarch (try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages) Lokesh, is this expected? -- 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 1952927] Review Request: ne - ne, the nice editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1952927 --- Comment #7 from Sebastiano Vigna --- Is there anything I should still do? The documentation says to look for sponsors after the review has been completed; also, the link to sponsors suggested in the documentation is no longer working. So I'm stuck on that issue. -- 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 1952329] Review Request: src - Simple Revision Control
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1952329 --- Comment #8 from Tomas Hrcka --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/src -- 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 1956643] Review Request: python-matplotlib-inline - Inline Matplotlib backend for Jupyter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1956643 --- Comment #7 from Miro Hrončok --- Awesome. Please consider: 1) adding @python-sig as a co-maintainer 2) enabling https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/package/python-matplotlib-inline -- 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 1954004] Review Request: perl-JSON-Create - Create JSON
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1954004 --- Comment #5 from Petr Pisar --- https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/33805 -- 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 1948661] Review Request: perl-YAML-PP-LibYAML - Faster parsing for YAML::PP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1948661 Michal Josef Spacek changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
