[Bug 1958914] Review Request: python-pulp - A python Linear Programming API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1958914 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-fbea6e1b20 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-fbea6e1b20 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-fbea6e1b20 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 1895567] Review Request: usd - 3D VFX pipeline interchange file format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1895567 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #35 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-c918be3bc8 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-c918be3bc8 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-c918be3bc8 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. --- Comment #36 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-78544b11bd has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-78544b11bd \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-78544b11bd 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 1901098] Review Request: rust-wasmparser - Simple event-driven library for parsing WebAssembly binary files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1901098 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-f8b0c5b041 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-f8b0c5b041 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-f8b0c5b041 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 1901092] Review Request: rust-enumset_derive - Internal helper crate for enumset
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1901092 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-2f88c6f685 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-2021-2f88c6f685 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-2f88c6f685 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 1958914] Review Request: python-pulp - A python Linear Programming API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1958914 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-d271314b8b 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-d271314b8b \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-d271314b8b 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 1956051] Review Request: R-vcd - Visualizing categorical data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1956051 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-a91186b5a7 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 1956051] Review Request: R-vcd - Visualizing categorical data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1956051 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-af5fc6c05b 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 1956051] Review Request: R-vcd - Visualizing categorical data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1956051 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2021-05-16 01:59:40 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-4fe46f3160 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 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 1960880] Review Request: golang-github-lestrrat-apache-logformat - Port of Perl5's Apache::LogFormat::Compiler to golang
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1960880 Bug 1960880 depends on bug 1960877, which changed state. Bug 1960877 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-facebookgo-clock - Clock is a small library for mocking time in Go https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1960877 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE -- 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 1960877] Review Request: golang-github-facebookgo-clock - Clock is a small library for mocking time in Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1960877 Brandon Perkins changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2021-05-15 20:58:34 --- Comment #1 from Brandon Perkins --- Not sure how I missed this: Issues: === - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/golang-github-facebookgo-clock See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names -- 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 587978] Review Request: whatweb - Web scanner to identify what websites are running
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=587978
Michal Ambroz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flags|needinfo?(re...@seznam.cz) |needinfo?(otu...@iki.fi)
--- Comment #32 from Michal Ambroz ---
(In reply to Otto Urpelainen from comment #31)
SPEC URL: http://rebus.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/whatweb.spec
SRPM URL: http://rebus.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/whatweb-0.5.5-2.fc34.src.rpm
> 1. What is the intent of fragment part #/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz?
> > Source0:
> > https://github.com/%{gituser}/%{gitname}/archive/v%{version}.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
when you download with the spectool -g whatweb.spec, this is what renames
boring v5.5.0.tar.gz to sexy whatweb-5.5.0.tar.gz
> 2. Better %{_bindir}/ruby, since that is how rubypick package provides this
> > Requires: /usr/bin/ruby
Ok ... thanks
> 3. Fixing env shebangs should not be required in Fedora anymore. If this is
> still needed for some reason (RHEL perhaps?), comment should be updated to
> match
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Ruby/#_shebang_lines
I consider env to be potential security problem and preffer to be explicit
about the interpreter used in the packaged stuff.
The guide is saying as well that it SHOULD use #!/usr/bin/ruby .
The "env ruby" is not always only /usr/bin/ruby. Depending on environment
settings it could be also /usr/local/bin/ruby or ~user/bin/ruby or even
/tmp/you_have_been_hacked/ruby .
> 4. I do not understand this. Is this an issue with upstream man pages? If
> so, a fix or an issue should be submitted and referenced from the specfile.
>
> > # Unknown macros in manpage
> > sed -i -e 's|^.ni||; s|^\./plugins-disabled|+\./plugins-disabled|' whatweb.1
Yes ... I guess that on Ubuntu they use different groff for formatting the man
pages so it is ok for them.
On Fedora it complains so I have to remove that tags.
> 5. Is this still needed? PR282 has been merged before 0.5.5 was released, so
> it should be ok. Again, if this is an upstream issue, a bug report or pull
> request should be referenced from here. If Fedora-specific, the situation
> should be explained.
>
> > # Add the whatweb shared directory + PR282
> > sed -i -e "s|expand_path(__dir__)), '.')|expand_path(__dir__)),
> > '%{_datadir}/%{name}')|" whatweb
Yes still needed. I do not consider this ustream bug, but it relies to Fedora
packaging.
> 6. Are both this and the earlier sed call that commnents off 'bundle install'
> needed?
Nah ... Just the sed was working. The alias was not working I just forgot it
there - thanks, removing the alias.
> 7. This is not wrong, but could be handled with a single row
> %{_datadir}/%{name}/addons, which would own the directory and include it and
> all its content in one statement. The same goes for lib, plugins,
> my-plugins, plugin-development and plugin-disabled folders. Also, I wonder
> if a simple '%{_datadir}/%{name}' would correctly handle all this, is there
> something in there that you do not want to own & include?
At the time I was packaging I was probably trying to comply with the rule that
all directories must be owned.
So I was trying to explicitly list them.
These days yes %{_datadir}/%{name} would do.
> 8. There are tests in the source, but no %check in specfile. Tests should be
> run. If is it too difficult to get them run inside the buildsystem, then
> perhaps a %check section with commented off attempt and a comment explaining
> why they cannot be run? Reference:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_test_suites
During build there is no networking.
The site used for tests - https://whatweb.net/ - is down.
Adding conditional and comment to build with tests.
> 9. my-plugins and plugin-development folders look like material for plugin
> writing. Are they really needed at runtime? If not, they should not
> installed.
- my-plugins is meant for locally created plugins to separate them from the
dozens of others. Its installed by upstream and searched for local libs - I do
not want to change this.
- moved plugin-development to documentation
> 10. What about the shell scripts in addons folder? Are the intended to be
> run by the user? If so, they should be installed to %{_bindir}. If not, and
> are not otherwise needed at runtime, they should be dropped or perhaps moved
> to documentation.
- yes executables, but more like examples. Not core functionality.
- moved to documentation
> 11. Maybe a comment here explaining what is going on.
> Is it just that RHEL does not support Recommends?
Yes. RHEL7 doesn't know Recommends.
Commented.
> 12. Is the license really GPLv2 or is it GPLv2+? License is listed as such
> in upstream home page, but many (not all!) files like lib/logging.rb contain
> a notice that also allows any later version. You should probably co
[Bug 1901098] Review Request: rust-wasmparser - Simple event-driven library for parsing WebAssembly binary files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1901098 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-f8b0c5b041 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-f8b0c5b041 -- 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 1901092] Review Request: rust-enumset_derive - Internal helper crate for enumset
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1901092 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-2f88c6f685 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-2f88c6f685 -- 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 1960878] Review Request: golang-github-lestrrat-envload - Restore and load environment variables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1960878 Brandon Perkins changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1960879 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1960879 [Bug 1960879] Review Request: golang-github-lestrrat-strftime - Fast strftime for Go -- 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 1960879] Review Request: golang-github-lestrrat-strftime - Fast strftime for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1960879 Brandon Perkins changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1960878 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1960878 [Bug 1960878] Review Request: golang-github-lestrrat-envload - Restore and load environment variables -- 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 1960879] Review Request: golang-github-lestrrat-strftime - Fast strftime for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1960879 Brandon Perkins changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1960880 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1960880 [Bug 1960880] Review Request: golang-github-lestrrat-apache-logformat - Port of Perl5's Apache::LogFormat::Compiler to golang -- 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 1960877] Review Request: golang-github-facebookgo-clock - Clock is a small library for mocking time in Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1960877 Brandon Perkins changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1960880 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1960880 [Bug 1960880] Review Request: golang-github-lestrrat-apache-logformat - Port of Perl5's Apache::LogFormat::Compiler to golang -- 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 1960880] Review Request: golang-github-lestrrat-apache-logformat - Port of Perl5's Apache::LogFormat::Compiler to golang
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1960880 Brandon Perkins changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1960879, 1960877 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1960877 [Bug 1960877] Review Request: golang-github-facebookgo-clock - Clock is a small library for mocking time in Go https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1960879 [Bug 1960879] Review Request: golang-github-lestrrat-strftime - Fast strftime for Go -- 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 1960880] Review Request: golang-github-lestrrat-apache-logformat - Port of Perl5's Apache::LogFormat::Compiler to golang
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1960880 Brandon Perkins changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1959606 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1959606 [Bug 1959606] golang-github-haproxytech-dataplaneapi-2.3.0 is available -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1960876] Review Request: golang-github-rodaine-hclencoder - HCL Encoder/Marshaller - Convert Go Types into HCL files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1960876 Brandon Perkins changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1959606 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1959606 [Bug 1959606] golang-github-haproxytech-dataplaneapi-2.3.0 is available -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1960880] New: Review Request: golang-github-lestrrat-apache-logformat - Port of Perl5's Apache::LogFormat::Compiler to golang
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1960880 Bug ID: 1960880 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-lestrrat-apache-logformat - Port of Perl5's Apache::LogFormat::Compiler to golang Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: bperk...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/bdperkin/haproxytech/master/SPECS/golang-github-lestrrat-apache-logformat.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/bdperkin/haproxytech/fedora-34-x86_64/02183344-golang-github-lestrrat-apache-logformat/golang-github-lestrrat-apache-logformat-2.0.6-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: Port of Perl5's Apache::LogFormat::Compiler to golang. Fedora Account System Username: bdperkin -- 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 1960879] New: Review Request: golang-github-lestrrat-strftime - Fast strftime for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1960879 Bug ID: 1960879 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-lestrrat-strftime - Fast strftime for Go Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: bperk...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/bdperkin/haproxytech/master/SPECS/golang-github-lestrrat-strftime.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/bdperkin/haproxytech/fedora-34-x86_64/02183340-golang-github-lestrrat-strftime/golang-github-lestrrat-strftime-1.0.4-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: Fast strftime for Go. Fedora Account System Username: bdperkin -- 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 1960878] New: Review Request: golang-github-lestrrat-envload - Restore and load environment variables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1960878 Bug ID: 1960878 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-lestrrat-envload - Restore and load environment variables Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: bperk...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/bdperkin/haproxytech/master/SPECS/golang-github-lestrrat-envload.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/bdperkin/haproxytech/fedora-34-x86_64/02183331-golang-github-lestrrat-envload/golang-github-lestrrat-envload-0-0.1.20210512gita3eb8dd.fc34.src.rpm Description: Restore and load environment variables. Fedora Account System Username: bdperkin -- 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 1960877] New: Review Request: golang-github-facebookgo-clock - Clock is a small library for mocking time in Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1960877 Bug ID: 1960877 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-facebookgo-clock - Clock is a small library for mocking time in Go Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: bperk...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/bdperkin/haproxytech/master/SPECS/golang-github-facebookgo-clock.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/bdperkin/haproxytech/fedora-34-x86_64/02183328-golang-github-facebookgo-clock/golang-github-facebookgo-clock-0-0.1.20210512git600d898.fc34.src.rpm Description: Clock is a small library for mocking time in Go. Fedora Account System Username: bdperkin -- 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 1960876] New: Review Request: golang-github-rodaine-hclencoder - HCL Encoder/Marshaller - Convert Go Types into HCL files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1960876 Bug ID: 1960876 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-rodaine-hclencoder - HCL Encoder/Marshaller - Convert Go Types into HCL files Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: bperk...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/bdperkin/haproxytech/master/SPECS/golang-github-rodaine-hclencoder.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/bdperkin/haproxytech/fedora-34-x86_64/02183319-golang-github-rodaine-hclencoder/golang-github-rodaine-hclencoder-0-0.1.20210512gitaaa140e.fc34.src.rpm Description: HCL Encoder/Marshaller - Convert Go Types into HCL files. Fedora Account System Username: bdperkin -- 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 1828968] Review Request: python-oca - Bindings for XMLRPC OpenNebula Cloud API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1828968 Nils Philippsen changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(nphilipp@redhat.c | |om) | -- 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 1828968] Review Request: python-oca - Bindings for XMLRPC OpenNebula Cloud API
Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Nils Philippsen has canceled Package Review 's request for Nils Philippsen 's needinfo: Bug 1828968: Review Request: python-oca - Bindings for XMLRPC OpenNebula Cloud API https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1828968 ___ 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 1959987] Review Request: crest - Conformer-Rotamer Ensemble Sampling Tool based on the xtb Semiempirical Extended Tight-Binding Program Package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1959987 Susi Lehtola changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(susi.lehtola@iki. | |fi) | --- Comment #2 from Susi Lehtola --- BR: gcc added as there are indeed a few C files. I've shortened the summary to "Conformer-Rotamer Ensemble Sampling Tool: a driver for the xtb program" The license field applies to the generated binaries; GPLv2+ and GPLv3+ results in the GPLv3+ license. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ?rd=Licensing/FAQ#How_should_I_handle_multiple_licensing_situations.3F If this was e.g. a Python package, the licenses should be specified separately. src/symmetry_i.c appears to originate from another project, like the other C sources, but I can file a PR upstream, see https://github.com/grimme-lab/crest/pull/55 I've also changed the %define to %global. Spec URL: https://jussilehtola.fedorapeople.org/crest.spec SRPM URL: https://jussilehtola.fedorapeople.org/crest-2.11-2.fc34.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 1959947] Review Request: opentype-sanitizer - Parses and serializes OpenType/WOFF/WOFF2 font files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1959947
Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 ---
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: 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: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised"
License", "Expat License", "SIL Open Font License 1.1". 282 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/opentype-sanitizer/review-opentype-
sanitizer/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: 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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 4 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
jus
[Bug 1959754] Review Request: rust-cranelift-entity - Data structures using entity references as mapping keys
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1959754 --- Comment #3 from Olivier Lemasle --- Thank you Robert-André! https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/33998 -- 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 1959780] Review Request: rust-cranelift-codegen-shared - For code shared between cranelift-codegen-meta and cranelift-codegen
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1959780 --- Comment #3 from Olivier Lemasle --- Thanks! https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/33997 -- 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 1959668] Review Request: chess_db - Chess database opening tree indexer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1959668 --- Comment #3 from Davide Cavalca --- Thanks! $ fedpkg request-repo chess_db 1959668 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/33996 -- 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 1895567] Review Request: usd - 3D VFX pipeline interchange file format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1895567 --- Comment #34 from Luya Tshimbalanga --- All set. -- 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 1959785] Review Request: applet-window-buttons - Plasma 5 applet to show window buttons in panels
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1959785
Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 ---
- Either own this directory or depends on a package that own it:
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of
/usr/share/plasma/plasmoids/org.kde.windowbuttons
Package approved. Please fix the aforementioned issue before import.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License, Version
2", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "GNU General
Public License v2.0 or later". 11 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/applet-window-
buttons/review-applet-window-buttons/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of
/usr/share/plasma/plasmoids/org.kde.windowbuttons
[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.
[-]: 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]: 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 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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File
[Bug 1957795] Review Request: perl-Syntax-Keyword-Defer - Add defer block syntax to Perl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1957795 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 --- Source0 archive (SHA-512: 1a9a549467e5129afbadc4cb80b38afbcc37e9a7975c29fd5dc5a63105a958a1825665d8460b274dac76a56043ba22b5977efd9d8209413f72fb8700b1afb854) is original. Ok. Summary verified from lib/Syntax/Keyword/Defer.pm. Ok. Description verified from lib/Syntax/Keyword/Defer.pm. Ok. License verified from LICENSE, Build.PL, and lib/Syntax/Keyword/Defer.pm Ok. XS code, Arch is Ok. Build-time dependencies are Ok. All tests pass. Ok. $ rpmlint perl-Syntax-Keyword-Defer.spec review-perl-Syntax-Keyword-Defer/results/perl-Syntax-Keyword-Defer-0.05-1.fc35.src.rpm review-perl-Syntax-Keyword-Defer/results/perl-Syntax-Keyword-Defer-0.05-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm perl-Syntax-Keyword-Defer.x86_64: W: library-not-linked-against-libc /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/Syntax/Keyword/Defer/Defer.so 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpm -q -lv -p review-perl-Syntax-Keyword-Defer/results/perl-Syntax-Keyword-Defer-0.05-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm drwxr-xr-x2 root root0 May 15 18:23 /usr/lib/.build-id drwxr-xr-x2 root root0 May 15 18:23 /usr/lib/.build-id/d3 lrwxrwxrwx1 root root 74 May 15 18:23 /usr/lib/.build-id/d3/88bdd335456fd69aff1626b6076870c38d453e -> ../../../../usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/Syntax/Keyword/Defer/Defer.so drwxr-xr-x2 root root0 May 15 18:23 /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/Syntax drwxr-xr-x2 root root0 May 15 18:23 /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/Syntax/Keyword -rw-r--r--1 root root 6299 May 15 18:23 /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/Syntax/Keyword/Defer.pm -rw-r--r--1 root root 1538 May 15 18:23 /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/Syntax/Keyword/Finally.pm drwxr-xr-x2 root root0 May 15 18:23 /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/Syntax drwxr-xr-x2 root root0 May 15 18:23 /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/Syntax/Keyword drwxr-xr-x2 root root0 May 15 18:23 /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/Syntax/Keyword/Defer -rwxr-xr-x1 root root15280 May 15 18:23 /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/Syntax/Keyword/Defer/Defer.so drwxr-xr-x2 root root0 May 15 18:23 /usr/share/doc/perl-Syntax-Keyword-Defer -rw-r--r--1 root root 1390 Apr 22 00:17 /usr/share/doc/perl-Syntax-Keyword-Defer/Changes -rw-r--r--1 root root 5792 Apr 22 00:17 /usr/share/doc/perl-Syntax-Keyword-Defer/README drwxr-xr-x2 root root0 May 15 18:23 /usr/share/licenses/perl-Syntax-Keyword-Defer -rw-r--r--1 root root18418 Apr 22 00:17 /usr/share/licenses/perl-Syntax-Keyword-Defer/LICENSE -rw-r--r--1 root root 4182 May 15 18:23 /usr/share/man/man3/Syntax::Keyword::Defer.3pm.gz -rw-r--r--1 root root 2332 May 15 18:23 /usr/share/man/man3/Syntax::Keyword::Finally.3pm.gz File layout and permissions are Ok. $ rpm -q --requires -p review-perl-Syntax-Keyword-Defer/results/perl-Syntax-Keyword-Defer-0.05-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm | sort -f | uniq -c 1 libpthread.so.0()(64bit) 1 libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) 1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.32.1) 1 perl(:VERSION) >= 5.14.0 1 perl(Carp) 1 perl(warnings) 1 perl(XS::Parse::Keyword) 1 perl(XSLoader) 1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadIsZstd) <= 5.4.18-1 1 rtld(GNU_HASH) Binary Requires are Ok. $ rpm -q --provides -p review-perl-Syntax-Keyword-Defer/results/perl-Syntax-Keyword-Defer-0.05-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm | sort -f | uniq -c 1 perl(Syntax::Keyword::Defer) = 0.05 1 perl(Syntax::Keyword::Finally) = 0.05 1 perl-Syntax-Keyword-Defer = 0.05-1.fc35 1 perl-Syntax-Keyword-Defer(x86-64) = 0.05-1.fc35 Binary Provides are Ok. The package builds in F35 (https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=67980951). Ok. The package is in line with Fedora and Perl packaging guidelines. Resolution: 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 ___ pac
[Bug 1960859] New: Review Request: mkdocs-markdownextradata-plugin - MkDocs plugin that injects mkdocs.yml extra variables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1960859 Bug ID: 1960859 Summary: Review Request: mkdocs-markdownextradata-plugin - MkDocs plugin that injects mkdocs.yml extra variables Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: c...@musicinmybrain.net QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/mkdocs-markdownextradata-plugin.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/mkdocs-markdownextradata-plugin-0.2.4-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: A MkDocs plugin that injects the mkdocs.yml extra variables into the markdown template Use case: As a user with variables that need to be inserted at the markdown level, not the template level. I need a mkdocs plugin that will inject my “extras” variables into the markdown template before it gets rendered to html. So that I can build my markdown pages with different values for images, urls, client_names, etc. Fedora Account System Username: music Koji scratch builds: F35: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=67980760 F34: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=67980767 F33: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=67980774 -- 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 1960858] New: Review Request: maui-mauikit- Kit for developing Maui Apps
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1960858 Bug ID: 1960858 Summary: Review Request: maui-mauikit- Kit for developing Maui Apps Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: thunderbir...@fedoraproject.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://pagure.io/Maukit-Packages/blob/main/f/maui-mauikit/maui-mauikit.spec SRPM URL: https://pagure.io/Maukit-Packages/blob/main/f/maui-mauikit/maui-mauikit-1.2.2-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: Kit for developing MAUI Apps. MauiKit is a set of utilities and "templated" controls based on Kirigami and QCC2 that follow the ongoing work on the Maui HIG. It let you quickly create a Maui application and access utilities and widgets shared amoing the other Maui apps. Fedora Account System Username: thunderbirdtr -- 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 1959780] Review Request: rust-cranelift-codegen-shared - For code shared between cranelift-codegen-meta and cranelift-codegen
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1959780 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 --- - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines 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 1959754] Review Request: rust-cranelift-entity - Data structures using entity references as mapping keys
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1959754 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 --- - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines 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 1959668] Review Request: chess_db - Chess database opening tree indexer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1959668
Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 ---
- Use install -p to keep timestamps
install -pm0755 parser/parser %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: 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: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License", "GNU General Public
License v3.0 or later". 33 files have unknown license. Detailed output
of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/chess_db/review-
chess_db/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: 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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgveri
[Bug 1959665] Review Request: scoutfish - Chess Query Engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1959665
--- Comment #3 from Davide Cavalca ---
Thanks!
$ fedpkg request-repo scoutfish 1959665
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/33991
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 from comment #2)
> - Add -p to keep timestamps:
>
> install -pm0755 src/scoutfish %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/
Will fix
> - Why is src/scoutfish.py in %doc?
It's an example of how to wrap scoutfish with Python. I could probably package
it like an actual library, but upstream doesn't to that and afaict no
downstream project is actually using it, so putting it in docs as an example
seemed more appropriate.
--
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 1895567] Review Request: usd - 3D VFX pipeline interchange file format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1895567 --- Comment #33 from Ben Beasley --- > Would you provide your Fedora account username please? music -- 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 1959625] Review Request: rust-cursive - TUI (Text User Interface) library focused on ease-of-use
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1959625 --- Comment #2 from Davide Cavalca --- Thanks! $ fedpkg request-repo rust-cursive 1959625 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/33990 -- 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 1959622] Review Request: rust-cursive_core - Core components for the Cursive TUI
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1959622 --- Comment #2 from Davide Cavalca --- Thanks! $ fedpkg request-repo rust-cursive_core 1959622 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/33989 -- 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 1959619] Review Request: rust-wasmer_enumset - Library for creating compact sets of enums
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1959619 --- Comment #2 from Davide Cavalca --- Thanks! $ fedpkg request-repo rust-wasmer_enumset 1959619 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/33988 -- 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 1959615] Review Request: rust-wasmer_enumset_derive - Internal helper crate for enumset
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1959615 --- Comment #3 from Davide Cavalca --- Thanks! $ fedpkg request-repo rust-wasmer_enumset_derive 1959615 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/33987 -- 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 1959613] Review Request: rust-enum-map - Map with C-like enum keys represented internally as an array
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1959613 --- Comment #2 from Davide Cavalca --- Thanks! $ fedpkg request-repo rust-enum-map 1959613 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/33986 -- 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 1959611] Review Request: rust-enum-map-derive - Macros 1.1 implementation of #[derive(Enum)]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1959611 --- Comment #3 from Davide Cavalca --- Thanks! $ fedpkg request-repo rust-enum-map-derive 1959611 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/33985 -- 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 1895567] Review Request: usd - 3D VFX pipeline interchange file format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1895567 --- Comment #32 from Luya Tshimbalanga --- (In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #31) > Thanks. Don’t forget to create Bugzilla bugs blocking the various > ExcludeArch tracker bugs, even if you close them immediately as WONTFIX > (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ > #_architecture_build_failures). Done. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1960848 > I think you’ll have to the one to add me, but sure, I’ll co-maintain. I’ve > spent enough time understanding this package that I might as well stick > around and help. :-) Would you provide your Fedora account username please? -- 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 1959665] Review Request: scoutfish - Chess Query Engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1959665
Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 ---
- Add -p to keep timestamps:
install -pm0755 src/scoutfish %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/
- Why is src/scoutfish.py in %doc?
Package approved. Please consider the aforementioned points before import.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: 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: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or
later", "Expat License". 35 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/scoutfish/review-
scoutfish/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: 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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does
[Bug 1959625] Review Request: rust-cursive - TUI (Text User Interface) library focused on ease-of-use
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1959625 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 --- - please be more specific here and link to upstream PR: # Initial patched metadata # * Bump ahash to 0.7.2, https://... Patch0: cursive-fix-metadata.diff - Please ask upstream to include the license files in the crate and link that bug report above the License: field in the meantime. - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines 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 1952927] Review Request: ne - ne, the nice editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1952927
Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #15 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 ---
- Don't add %doc here and keep it in the main package:
{_infodir}/ne.info*
It should be directly available along the binary like the man page.
Package is approved. I've also sponsored you and I'll send you a message
regarding the next steps.
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841
[Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a
sponsor
--
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 1960850] New: Review Request: kf5-kirigami2-addons - Convergent visual components ("widgets") for Kirigami-based applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1960850
Bug ID: 1960850
Summary: Review Request: kf5-kirigami2-addons - Convergent
visual components ("widgets") for Kirigami-based
applications
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Component: Package Review
Severity: medium
Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
Reporter: thunderbir...@fedoraproject.org
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora
Spec URL:
https://pagure.io/plasma-mobile-apps/blob/master/f/kf5-kirigami2-addons/kf5-kirigami2-addons.spec
SRPM URL:
https://pagure.io/plasma-mobile-apps/blob/master/f/kf5-kirigami2-addons/kf5-kirigami2-addons-21.05-1.fc34.src.rpm
Description: A set of "widgets" i.e visual end user components along with a
code to support them. Components are usable by both touch and
desktop experiences providing a native experience on both, and
look native with any QQC2 style (qqc2-desktop-theme, Material
or Plasma).
Fedora Account System Username: thunderbirdtr
--
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 1960849] New: Review Request: kclock - Clock app for Plasma Mobile
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1960849 Bug ID: 1960849 Summary: Review Request: kclock - Clock app for Plasma Mobile Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: thunderbir...@fedoraproject.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://pagure.io/plasma-mobile-apps/blob/master/f/kclock/kclock.spec SRPM URL: https://pagure.io/plasma-mobile-apps/blob/master/f/kclock/kclock-21.05-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: A convergent clock application for Plasma. Fedora Account System Username: thunderbirdtr -- 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 1959622] Review Request: rust-cursive_core - Core components for the Cursive TUI
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1959622 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 --- - please be more specific here and link to upstream PR: # Initial patched metadata # * Bump ahash to 0.7.2, https://... # * Bump enum-map to 1.1.0, https://... Patch0: cursive_core-fix-metadata.diff - Please ask upstream to include the license files in the crate and link that bug report above the License: field in the meantime. - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines 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 1959987] Review Request: crest - Conformer-Rotamer Ensemble Sampling Tool based on the xtb Semiempirical Extended Tight-Binding Program Package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1959987 Ben Beasley changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(susi.lehtola@iki. ||fi) --- Comment #1 from Ben Beasley --- This a very high-quality submission. Thanks! Package Review == Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: === - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ You have correctly BR’d gcc-gfortran, which implies gcc, so fedora-review may be a bit overzealous here. Still, a direct BR on plain gcc wouldn’t hurt since you do have some C sources. It’s a minor quibble at most. - From rpmlint: crest.x86_64: E: summary-too-long C Conformer-Rotamer Ensemble Sampling Tool based on the xtb Semiempirical Extended Tight-Binding Program Package Looking at the description, which suggests the above summary is out of date anyway, why not use something like this? Summary:Utility/driver program for xtb - It looks like you should have something like: # The entire source is GPLv3+ except: # # GPLv2+: # - src/symmetry_i.c # LGPLv2+: # - src/ls_rmsd.f90 # - src/spline.f90 # # Certain build-system files are LGPLv3+, but they do not contribute to the # license of the built RPMs. License:GPLv3+ and GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ Please see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_multiple_licensing_scenarios for the relevant guidelines. - The following file has an obsolete Free Software Foundation postal address in its license statement. Please bring this to the attention of the upstream developers so they can fix it in a future release. - src/symmetry_i.c - Please change: %define soname 6 to: %global soname 6 See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_global_preferred_over_define. = Notes (not Issues!) = - Correctly justified ExcludeArch: s390x. Please file a bugzilla blocking F-ExcludeArch-s390x after the package is imported (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_architecture_build_failures), and add a link above the ExcludeArch in the spec file at that time. - My compliments on getting the flexiblas part correct, and on getting the necessary patch included upstream. = MUST items = C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later", "Unknown or generated", "GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Mass Ave)]". 33 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/1959987-crest/licensecheck.txt See the Issues section, above. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: 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. [-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. Correctly justified ExcludeArch: s390x. Please file a bugzilla blocking F-ExcludeArch-s390x after the p
[Bug 1959987] Review Request: crest - Conformer-Rotamer Ensemble Sampling Tool based on the xtb Semiempirical Extended Tight-Binding Program Package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1959987 Ben Beasley changed: What|Removed |Added CC||c...@musicinmybrain.net 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 1959619] Review Request: rust-wasmer_enumset - Library for creating compact sets of enums
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1959619 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 --- - Please ask upstream to include the license files in the crate and link that bug report above the License: field in the meantime. - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines 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 1959615] Review Request: rust-wasmer_enumset_derive - Internal helper crate for enumset
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1959615 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 --- - Please be more specific and add a link to an upstream PR: # Initial patched metadata # * Bump darling to 0.12.2, https://... Patch0: wasmer_enumset_derive-fix-metadata.diff - Please ask upstream to include the license files in the crate and link that bug report above the License: field in the meantime. - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines 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 1952927] Review Request: ne - ne, the nice editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1952927 --- Comment #14 from Sebastiano Vigna --- All comments implemented. I see in your suggestion that you left out of the doc package the man page and ne.info.gz, which are small, so I left them in the main package. We are planning a 3.3.1 release, which will position the OPTS options at the _end_. Presently, the -O3 option in ne's makefile is specified after $(OPTS), so it overrides Fedora's preferred -O2 option. That won't be the case in 3.3.1. So the first actual package I plan to create is for 3.3.1. -- 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 1959613] Review Request: rust-enum-map - Map with C-like enum keys represented internally as an array
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1959613 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 --- - Please ask upstream to include the license files in the crate - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines 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 1959611] Review Request: rust-enum-map-derive - Macros 1.1 implementation of #[derive(Enum)]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1959611 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 --- - Please ask upstream to include the license files in the crate - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines 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 1959341] Review Request: rust-webpki-roots - Mozilla's CA root certificates for use with webpki
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1959341 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 --- - License ok - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines 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 1959119] Review Request: rust-serde_fmt - Write any serde::Serialize using the standard formatting APIs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1959119 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 --- - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines 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 1952927] Review Request: ne - ne, the nice editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1952927 --- Comment #13 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 --- Also use https if possible in URL and Source -- 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 #12 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 ---
- make -> %make_build
- Split the doc into a separate *noarch* subpackage
- Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 1884160 bytes in 202 files.
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/#_documentation
Recommends: ne-doc = %{version}-%{release}
[…]
%package doc
Summary: Documentation for ne, the nice editor
BuildArch: noarch
%description doc
Documentation for ne, the nice editor.
[…]
%files doc
%license ./COPYING
%doc html
%doc ./doc/ne.texinfo
%doc ./doc/ne.pdf
%doc ./doc/ne.txt
%doc ./doc/default.*
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 1884160 bytes in 202 files.
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/#_documentation
= 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: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU General Public
License, Version 3", "*No copyright* [generated file]", "GNU General
Public License v3.0 or later", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or
later [generated file]", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or
later", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "GNU General
Public License v2.0 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Mass
Ave)]". 286 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/ne/review-
ne/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: 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]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under
[Bug 1959035] Review Request: python-owl_rl - OWL-RL and RDFS based RDF Closure inferencing for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1959035
Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 ---
Source1:LICENSE.txt
- I would prefer you grab it from upstream directly:
Source1:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/RDFLib/OWL-RL/master/LICENSE.txt
- Remove that weird shebang in prep:
python3-owlrl.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/owlrl/OWLRL.py 644 /d/Bin/Python/python.exe
- Use the %pytest macro:
%if %{with tests}
# test_version_converter needs an internet connection, therefore disabled
%pytest -k 'not cls_maxqc1' \
--deselect test/test_version_converter.py
%endif
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated". 124 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-
owl_rl/review-python-owl_rl/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain
[Bug 1957702] Review Request: kweathercore - Library to facilitate retrieval of weather information
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1957702 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 --- Package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1957816] Review Request: kweather - Convergent KDE weather application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1957816 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 --- LGTM, 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 1906980] Review Request: highway - Efficient and performance-portable SIMD
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1906980 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST Flags|needinfo?(zebo...@gmail.com | |) | --- Comment #24 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 --- Thanks, I'm just really busy these days. -- 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 1954842] Review Request: sndfile-tools - Programs to do interesting things with sound files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1954842
Ben Beasley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Ben Beasley ---
Package approved. Thanks for your work on it. Please do see the “Notes” section
below.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Notes
The following are informational, not problems with the package.
- Upstream and I agreed on an explanation for the remaining memory leak in
https://github.com/libsndfile/sndfile-tools/issues/76 and fixed it in
https://github.com/libsndfile/sndfile-tools/commit/773d88e9be770089e14857ebe0225ddb239c4928,
so if you backport that commit as a patch you could change
if echo "${result}" | grep -Ev ': (ok$|0 errors)' >/dev/null
to
if echo "${result}" | grep -Ev ': ok$' >/dev/null
- The man page for sndfile-waveform is actually present in git
(https://github.com/libsndfile/sndfile-tools/blob/9dbeefc470a3391afd3a64cc7f80a45f43f35a13/man/sndfile-waveform.1)
but missing in the source tarball. I helped upstream fix this
(https://github.com/libsndfile/sndfile-tools/commit/9dbeefc470a3391afd3a64cc7f80a45f43f35a13),
so it will be there in the next release.
= 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: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License, Version
2", "[generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention) GNU
General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited
License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later
[generated file]", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "Expat
License [generated file]", "FSF All Permissive License", "GNU General
Public License", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "BSD
2-clause "Simplified" License". 23 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/1954842-sndfile-
tools/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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 389120 bytes in 7 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
[Bug 1895567] Review Request: usd - 3D VFX pipeline interchange file format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1895567 --- Comment #31 from Ben Beasley --- Thanks. Don’t forget to create Bugzilla bugs blocking the various ExcludeArch tracker bugs, even if you close them immediately as WONTFIX (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_architecture_build_failures). > Feel free to become a co-maintainer if you like. I think you’ll have to the one to add me, but sure, I’ll co-maintain. I’ve spent enough time understanding this package that I might as well stick around and help. :-) -- 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 1906980] Review Request: highway - Efficient and performance-portable SIMD
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1906980 Ben Beasley changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(zebo...@gmail.com ||) --- Comment #23 from Ben Beasley --- (This is just a ping in case you missed the ”package approved“ notifications). -- 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 1954842] Review Request: sndfile-tools - Programs to do interesting things with sound files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1954842 --- Comment #3 from Ben Beasley --- Wow, I didn‘t realize I had left this review incomplete. My apologies. I‘m working on it now. -- 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 1960823] New: Review Request: keysmith - OTP client for Plasma Mobile and Desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1960823 Bug ID: 1960823 Summary: Review Request: keysmith - OTP client for Plasma Mobile and Desktop Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: thunderbir...@fedoraproject.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://pagure.io/plasma-mobile-apps/blob/master/f/keysmith/keysmith.spec SRPM URL: https://pagure.io/plasma-mobile-apps/blob/master/f/keysmith/keysmith-21.05-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: OTP client for Plasma Mobile and Desktop Fedora Account System Username: thunderbirdtr -- 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 1958914] Review Request: python-pulp - A python Linear Programming API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1958914 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-d271314b8b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-d271314b8b --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-fbea6e1b20 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-fbea6e1b20 -- 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 1958914] Review Request: python-pulp - A python Linear Programming API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1958914 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-d271314b8b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-d271314b8b -- 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 1959785] Review Request: applet-window-buttons - Plasma 5 applet to show window buttons in panels
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1959785
--- Comment #1 from Onuralp SEZER ---
Issues: (All fixed)
===
- If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/
- Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
file-validate if there is such a file.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1957816] Review Request: kweather - Convergent KDE weather application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1957816
--- Comment #7 from Onuralp SEZER ---
It is fixed as well, thank you.
Thank you.(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #6)
> > sed -i 's/GPL-2+/GPL-2/g'
> > %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/metainfo/org.kde.%{name}.appdata.xml
>
> This should be "GPL-2+" -> "GPL-2.0-or-later".
--
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
