[Bug 976793] Review Request: lunchbox - C++ library for multi-threaded programming
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976793
Otto Urpelainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(jskarvad@redhat.c
||om)
--- Comment #37 from Otto Urpelainen ---
Review taken, here is everything I could spot.
1.
> # CMake/common/ittnotify.h is under GPLv2, the rest is LGPL
I am not sure if it counts, since it is part of the build script only,
and License field should describe the packaged content, not srpm.
Reference:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_field
2.
Looking at licensecheck.txt generated by fedora-review
and disregarding the build script,
it looks like the actual license is more like this:
(
and Boost# lunchbox/atomic.h, lunchbox/any.h
and LGPLv2 # most files
and LGPLv3 # some files, like any.cpp and lfVector.h
)
According to GPL Compatibility Matrix from Fedora Wiki [1]
LGPLv2 and LGPLv3 mix only by "converting to GPLv3".
I suppose the correct action would then be
to mark the license as "Boost and GPLv3",
note somewhere that the conversion option was used
(I am not aware of specific instructions on how to do this)
and include GPLv3 license text as %license.
The Boost license is already included in ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.txt,
so that should be installed as %license.
Additionally, lunchbox/test.h is under BSD.
It is a test runner,
contains its license in the file header
and is not compiled during the build.
As long as it goes to devel package or is simply not installed,
its license is ok.
Getting licensing right is messy as usual,
there may well be something we have missed.
Let us try to get as close to reality as possible,
even if upstream situation is quite unclear.
[1]:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#GPL_Compatibility_Matrix
3.
> Provides: bundled(eyescale-cmake-common)
Use versioned Provides.
Reference: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bundling
4.
> %{_libdir}/libLunchbox.so.1*
Globbing that hides important parts of the shared object file name should not
be used.
Because the found suffixes here are 1.17.0 and 10.0.0,
it would be better to select both of these separately.
Reference:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_listing_shared_library_files
5.
> Requires: pkgconfig
> Requires: cmake
I do not think these are needed.
The build does not produce a pkgconfig file
and CMake files are installed under self-owner directory %{_datadir}/Lunchbox
6.
I agree Petr regarding the contents of /usr/share/Lunchbox,
those should not go to the binary package.
> /usr/share/Lunchbox/CMake/LunchboxConfig.cmake
> /usr/share/Lunchbox/CMake/LunchboxConfigVersion.cmake
> /usr/share/Lunchbox/CMake/LunchboxTargets-debug.cmake
> /usr/share/Lunchbox/CMake/LunchboxTargets.cmake
> /usr/share/Lunchbox/CMake/options.cmake
I am not familiar enough with CMake builds in Fedora
to say how cmake scripts should be packaged
(the CMake guidelines should be extended to cover this)
but assuming that the directory structure is acceptable
these should be package in the -devel package.
> /usr/share/Lunchbox/benchmarks/perf-lfVector
> /usr/share/Lunchbox/benchmarks/perf-mutex
> /usr/share/Lunchbox/benchmarks/perf-rwLock
Test executables, should go to -devel
if packaged at all.
Also, binaries have no place in %{_datadir},
rpmlint complains about this.
So if they are package in any package,
they should go to %{_bindir}.
> /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/any.cpp
> /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/anySerialization.cpp
> /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/buffer.cpp
> /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/clock.cpp
> /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/debug.cpp
> /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/dso.cpp
> /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/file.cpp
> /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/future.cpp
> /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/init.cpp
> /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/issue1.cpp
> /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/lfQueue.cpp
> /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/memoryMap.cpp
> /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/monitor.cpp
> /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/mtQueue.cpp
> /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/perThread.cpp
> /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/perf/lfVector.cpp
> /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/perf/mutex.cpp
> /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/perf/rwLock.cpp
> /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/pluginFactory.cpp
> /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/refPtr.cpp
> /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/requestHandler.cpp
> /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/rng.cpp
> /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/thread.cpp
> /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/threadPool.cpp
Test source files.
I do not see any reason to package these,
they are already available in srpm
and it is not usual to package sources in -devel.
7.
> $ rpm -q --requires
> ./review-lunchbox/results/lunchbox-1.17.0-3.fc35.x86_64.rpm
> libboost_unit_test_framework.so.1.75.0()(64bit)
As this package is not a test runner or similar tool
there should be
[Bug 1984419] Review Request: python-charset-normalizer - The Real First Universal Charset Detector
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1984419 --- Comment #2 from Lumír Balhar --- (In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #1) > `rm setup.cfg` in %prep should do for now, a more complex sed is more future > proof. Removing the file seemed too drastic to me and I was afraid that an empty section would cause problems but it seems it works fine. Fixed. > I would not use "I" in package descriptions, it sounds weird. Fixed. -- 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 1976336] Review Request: python-fqdn - Validates fully-qualified domain names against RFC 1123
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1976336 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-eec6706150 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 1981607] Review Request: python-platformdirs - Python module for determining appropriate platform-specific dirs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981607 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-3446b99717 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 1976785] Review Request: php-pecl-var-representation - var_representation extension
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1976785 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-191b03f87d 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 1980282] Review Request: exaile - music player
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1980282 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-230656804f 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 1981621] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-vertical-overview - GNOME Shell extension for vertical overview and workspaces
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981621 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2021-07-22 01:14:00 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-a4bed74e91 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 1981607] Review Request: python-platformdirs - Python module for determining appropriate platform-specific dirs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981607 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2021-07-22 01:13:52 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-b93fa53f21 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 1976336] Review Request: python-fqdn - Validates fully-qualified domain names against RFC 1123
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1976336 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2021-07-22 01:13:50 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-d891248ef9 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 1976785] Review Request: php-pecl-var-representation - var_representation extension
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1976785 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2021-07-22 01:13:46 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-58d61322b0 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 1980282] Review Request: exaile - music player
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1980282 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2021-07-22 01:13:44 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-f569edcb75 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 1984192] Review Request: rust-watchman_client - Client for the Watchman file watching service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1984192
Michel Alexandre Salim changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Michel Alexandre Salim ---
Looks fine, APPROVED. Note: please file an issue for the missing LICENSE file
in the crate, and put a link in the spec
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Dist tag is present.
= 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.
[-]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in
/home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/1984192-rust-
watchman_client/licensecheck.txt
[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= 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).
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rust-
watchman_client-devel , rust-watchman_client+default-devel
=> known Rust packaging bug
[?]: 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
justified.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: %check is present
[Bug 1984191] Review Request: rust-serde_bser - Implements the Watchman BSER encoding for serde
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1984191
Michel Alexandre Salim changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Michel Alexandre Salim ---
Looks fine, APPROVED. Note: please file an issue for the missing LICENSE file
in the crate, and put a link in the spec
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Dist tag is present.
= 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.
[-]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated". 21 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in
/home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/1984191-rust-
serde_bser/licensecheck.txt
[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rust-
serde_bser-devel , rust-serde_bser+default-devel , rust-
serde_bser+debug_bytes-devel
=> known Rust packaging bug
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to pr
[Bug 1984191] Review Request: rust-serde_bser - Implements the Watchman BSER encoding for serde
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1984191 Michel Alexandre Salim changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mic...@michel-slm.name Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mic...@michel-slm.name Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Michel Alexandre Salim --- Taking this 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 1984192] Review Request: rust-watchman_client - Client for the Watchman file watching service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1984192 Michel Alexandre Salim changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mic...@michel-slm.name Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mic...@michel-slm.name Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Michel Alexandre Salim --- Taking this 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 1978395] Review Request: rubygem-sync - A module that provides a two-phase lock with a counter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1978395 --- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-sync -- 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 976793] Review Request: lunchbox - C++ library for multi-threaded programming
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976793 Otto Urpelainen changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|otu...@iki.fi --- Comment #36 from Otto Urpelainen --- (In reply to Petr Menšík from comment #35) > The review bug were not assigned, I just spent a little time on it. If you > wish to finish it, feel free to do so. It would be even better because > Jaroslav is my colleague and it would be more 'independent' review from you. > Feel free to take it yourself. Just shared my opinions on it, no claims on > it taken. Yes, it has been my intention to review this. I just forgot to set myself as the assignee, I only set the fedora-review flag. So I will continue from here complete this. Thank you for your input! Any further comments are also welcome. -- 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 976793] Review Request: lunchbox - C++ library for multi-threaded programming
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976793 Petr Menšík changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(pemensik@redhat.c | |om) | --- Comment #35 from Petr Menšík --- The review bug were not assigned, I just spent a little time on it. If you wish to finish it, feel free to do so. It would be even better because Jaroslav is my colleague and it would be more 'independent' review from you. Feel free to take it yourself. Just shared my opinions on it, no claims on it taken. -- 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 758472] Review Request: Equalizer - Middleware to create and deploy parallel OpenGL-based applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=758472 Petr Menšík changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pemen...@redhat.com --- Comment #22 from Petr Menšík --- Because this package is presented on equalizergraphics.com domain, I would vote for equalizer-graphics, equalizergraphics or just equalizer-g package name. G may stand for Graphics, GPU, GL, whatever. It hints no relation to audio equalizer is present, which might be primary expectation of such name. I don't like libEqualizer if upstream never used that name. equalizergraphics is not very short, but should work for intermediate specialized library. And they present it under that name already. I am not sure it needs to be renamed, because no package of similar name already exists. Is there any open source product depending on this library? -- 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 976793] Review Request: lunchbox - C++ library for multi-threaded programming
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976793 Otto Urpelainen changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(pemensik@redhat.c ||om) --- Comment #34 from Otto Urpelainen --- @pemen...@redhat.com Since you already did so much for the review, would you mind if I passed the reviewer's torch to you? I am still up for completing this, but I do not see the point of duplicating the effort either. -- 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 1982635] Review Request: php-league-uri-interfaces - Common interface for URI representation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1982635 --- Comment #4 from Otto Urpelainen --- Thank you for explaining all this. I'll take another look when you have the next iteration ready. -- 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 976793] Review Request: lunchbox - C++ library for multi-threaded programming
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976793
--- Comment #33 from Petr Menšík ---
Seems to me whole %{_datadir}/Lunchbox should be moved to devel. I doubt even
cmake rules are useful outside devel package.
--
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 976793] Review Request: lunchbox - C++ library for multi-threaded programming
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976793
--- Comment #32 from Petr Menšík ---
It looks almost good. I found just /usr/share/Lunchbox/benchmarks/perf-*
binaries from main package to be offending FHS. They are architecture dependent
executables, I think they should be somewhere under /usr/libexec/Lunchbox/ or
similar. Not sure they are useful in main package, I think they should have own
subpackage or be part of -devel subpackage.
I think /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/ should be moved to devel subpackage too, it
would not be useful to possible lunchbox dependent package builds.
I think LICENSE.txt and LGPL.txt should be marked as %license, even when they
have wrong address.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %license.
Note: License file LICENSE.txt is not marked as %license
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU Lesser General Public License,
Version 2.1 [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]", "GNU Lesser
General Public License, Version 2.1", "GNU General Public License,
Version 2", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3", "GNU
Lesser General Public License, Version 3 Boost Software License 1.0",
"Boost Software License 1.0", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised"
License", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "*No
copyright* BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "BSD 3-clause
"New" or "Revised" License GNU General Public License, Version 2". 124
files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/reviewer/fedora/rawhide/976793-lunchbox/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.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[!]: 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 51200 bytes in 5 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates
[Bug 1738290] Review Request: libcamera - A library to support complex camera ISPs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1738290 Nicolas Dufresne changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nico...@ndufresne.ca --- Comment #19 from Nicolas Dufresne --- Hi Folks, as libcamera is not yet to a point were it can be released with a version, I would recommend going further then just the Fedora packaging rules. I would suggest to patch libcamera to rename the library, I would propose libcamera-unstable.so.X.Y. This way, you can pretty much be guarantee to never clash with a stable version of the SO. As for the users of libcamera, the GStreamer element rely on stable GStreamer release, but unstable libcamera, and that's why we placed inside libcamera. For the SPA plugin, inside of PipeWire, it depends on both unstable libcamera and SPA interface. Someone had to decide. Note that the libcamera SPA plugin is mostly a proof-of-concept. It is meant to cover the legacy use cases, single stream, that is covered by the V4L2 SPA plugin. It is also not very "real time" friendly, as libcamera API does a lot of run-time allocation. A proper libcamera / PipeWire integration will be needed to allow configuring multiple streams on the RPi or other modern SoC (including Intel IPU3) based cameras. -- 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 1984210] Review Request: build-constraints-rpm-macros - RPM macros for build constraints
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1984210 --- Comment #5 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/build-constraints-rpm-macros -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1923830] Review Request: Diffuse - Diff Utility (Re-introducing Retired Package)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1923830 --- Comment #23 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/Diffuse -- 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 1984466] New: Review Request: rubygem-ed25519 - An efficient digital signature library providing the Ed25519 algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1984466 Bug ID: 1984466 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-ed25519 - An efficient digital signature library providing the Ed25519 algorithm Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: pval...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/fedora-distgit/rubygem-ed25519/rawhide/rubygem-ed25519.spec SRPM URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/fedora-distgit/rubygem-ed25519/rawhide/rubygem-ed25519-1.2.4-1.fc35.src.rpm Description: A Ruby binding to the Ed25519 elliptic curve public-key signature system described in RFC 8032. Fedora Account System Username: pvalena Koji scratch-build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=72309111 COPR build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/2336086 It's supposed to be used with Vagrant: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1962869 https://gist.github.com/pvalena/a7d0028da78b0e71d54ff3a2e170a138 (I didn't test the integration, but it's installation doesn't break Vagrant.) -- 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 1984419] Review Request: python-charset-normalizer - The Real First Universal Charset Detector
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1984419 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mhron...@redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Miro Hrončok --- Spec sanity: > BuildRequires: python3dist(pytest-cov) Please don't use pytest-cov in %check if not hideously complicated to stop. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_linters `rm setup.cfg` in %prep should do for now, a more complex sed is more future proof. We would need to remove it from RHEL 10 anyway, so better do it straight away. > Motivated by chardet, I'm trying to resolve the issue by taking a new > approach. I would not use "I" in package descriptions, it sounds weird. Looks good otherwise, straight and simple specfile, thanks. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1984451] New: Review Request: apache-commons-text - Apache Commons Text is a library focused on algorithms working on strings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1984451 Bug ID: 1984451 Summary: Review Request: apache-commons-text - Apache Commons Text is a library focused on algorithms working on strings Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: didiksupriad...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/didiksupriadi41/apache-commons-text/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02336068-apache-commons-text/apache-commons-text.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/didiksupriadi41/apache-commons-text/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02336068-apache-commons-text/apache-commons-text-1.9-1.fc35.src.rpm Description: The Commons Text library provides additions to the standard JDK's text handling. Our goal is to provide a consistent set of tools for processing text generally from computing distances between Strings to being able to efficiently do String escaping of various types. Fedora Account System Username: didiksupriadi41 -- 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 1908526] Review Request: python-opentracing - OpenTracing interface for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1908526 --- Comment #21 from Ben Beasley --- > Concerning the submission to rawhide, looking at step 12 of > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/New_package_process_for_existing_contributors > , I am not clear which Resolution I should choose for the closure of a bug > such as this one. I have chosen Resolution: RAWHIDE, but Resolution: > NEXTRELEASE seems just as good, I'm unsure about the difference. Maybe I > haven't yet stumbled upon the doc that explains it. I don’t think it matters much. RAWHIDE is common for manual closure of a review request. If you associate the bug with a “newpackage” update for a stable release and have it auto-close it, then it will look like this: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1974821 - > To submit an update for f34 or f33, it looks like I have to prepare a test > case that will allow testers to try and see that python-opentracing works, > correct? It might be quite involving, users would have to spawn a container > with a jaegertracing server, run some test Python program and see things > happening in the jaegertracing web UI... This might take some time until I > can finally submit updates for f33/f34 or even epel8. You can do this. It is “recommended.” (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Package_maintainer_responsibilities/#_work_with_testing) As far as I can tell, test cases belong here (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Test_Cases), and the procedures for creating test cases and test plans are linked from that page. In practice, you can see that there are roughly 130 packages on that page, out of over 30 thousand packages in Fedora. Few packagers make these test cases, and most of the time you’ll never see anyone testing your updates anyway. You can also set up automated tests for your package (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/ci/). This is a great idea, but there’s a nontrivial learning curve and a lot of YAML to write, so it isn’t mandatory either. In practice, most packages have neither wiki test cases nor manually-configured CI gating, and that’s unlikely to change. - So here are the steps for using Bodhi, which you’ve probably already read: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_update_HOWTO#Later_Branched_and_stable_releases. Basically, the workflow for an update to a stable release goes like this: 1. If it’s a newpackage update, go ahead to the next step. If it’s a bugfix or enhancement update, consider if it contains any breaking API changes (or, for compiled libraries, ABI changes). For a tool or application, consider if it contains significant changes to the user experience. If so, the update shouldn’t go in a stable release. If there is a good reason to break this rule (for example, a security fix that can’t be backported), you should petition FESCo (Fedora Engineering Steering Council) for an exception. You’ll probably never have to do that. 2. OK, it’s a newpackage update, or a compatible patch or minor update. You’ve merged changes into the appropriate stable branch (“git merge rawhide”, or “git cherry-pick …”, depending on how you like to manage your branches). You’ve pushed to the branch and built the package. (I know you’ve gotten this far.) Now you can choose to use the Bodhi CLI, which is most easily accessed as “fedpkg update”, or the web interface at https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/new. The fields are pretty much the same for both. 3. If you are using the CLI, you already have a build associated with the update. If you are using the web interface, find the package you built. You should create separate updates for separate branches, i.e., one for F34 and one for F33. 4. Type a quick description of what has changed. This is for the benefit of end-users, so keep it simple and informative. When the update provides a new version, copying in the upstream changelog can be nice, if there is a useful one. For the initial newpackage update, you can just write something like “Initial package”. 5. Pick an update type. These are pretty self-explanatory. This time you’ll want “newpackage”. 6. You can leave severity unspecified except for security updates. You can leave suggestion unspecified unless there’s some reason you think users should logout or reboot after the update. That mostly applies to libraries likely to be used by the desktop session or by various daemons, especially when the update is a security one. 7. You can associate one or more bugs with the update. For a newpackage update, it’s nice to associate the review request issue (this bug). For an enhancement or bugfix update, there might or might not be a bug corresponding to an issue that’s fixed in the update, or a “new release is available” bug filed by upstream release monitoring (anitya). You usually do want to enable “close bugs” so that the status of the bug follows the update’s progress into testing and then stable. There is no requirement to have a bug for an update, even for
[Bug 1981978] Review Request: sip6 - SIP - Python/C++ Bindings Generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981978 Scott Talbert changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2021-07-21 13:30:11 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1955394] Review Request: qatzip - Intel® QuickAssist Technology (QAT) QATzip Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1955394 zm627 changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(pragyansri.pathi@ ||intel.com) --- Comment #28 from zm627 --- Thanks a lot Ben! Hi Pragyan, Would you like to help me with the sponsor thing? Do we have to be sponsored by a certain person or group? Thanks -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1984078] Review Request: CFR - Another Java Decompiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1984078 --- Comment #3 from jiri vanek --- Pls, request all live branches including epel7 and epel8 -- 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 1984078] Review Request: CFR - Another Java Decompiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1984078
jiri vanek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from jiri vanek ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- missing launcher, ok to add later
- cfr.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C It'll even make a decent go of
turning class files from other JVM languages back into java!
- ok to fix later
- correctly missing main method from jar
= 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: "Expat License", "Unknown or generated". 736 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/jvanek/Desktop/1984078-cfr/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]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[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.
[-]: 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 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]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
Indeed, there are not ests inthe release tarball...
[-]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original i
[Bug 1984419] Review Request: python-charset-normalizer - The Real First Universal Charset Detector
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1984419 Lumír Balhar changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1981856 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981856 [Bug 1981856] python-requests-2.26.0 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 1984419] New: Review Request: python-charset-normalizer - The Real First Universal Charset Detector
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1984419 Bug ID: 1984419 Summary: Review Request: python-charset-normalizer - The Real First Universal Charset Detector Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: lbal...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://lbalhar.fedorapeople.org/python-charset-normalizer.spec SRPM URL: https://lbalhar.fedorapeople.org/python-charset-normalizer-2.0.3-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: A library that helps you read text from an unknown charset encoding. Motivated by chardet, I'm trying to resolve the issue by taking a new approach. All IANA character set names for which the Python core library provides codecs are supported. Fedora Account System Username: lbalhar This is a new dependency of python-requests. I'm building this new package, python-requests and all dependant packages in https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/lbalhar/requests/builds/ -- 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 1982635] Review Request: php-league-uri-interfaces - Common interface for URI representation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1982635
--- Comment #3 from Christopher Engelhard ---
Thanks for the review. I'm working on the test issue and will set NEEDINFO once
I have a new build including all fixes.
(In reply to Otto Urpelainen from comment #1)
> 2.
> From fedora-review:
> Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/php/League
> This is a MUST item in the guidelines,
> so it must be fixed.
> I am not sure how vendor directory ownership is usually handed in php
> packages.
> I suppose all packages from League could share the ownership?
> Then this would do it: %dir %{_datadir}/php/League
> Reference:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
> #_file_and_directory_ownership
Yes. Other packages in the \League namespace already own /usr/share/php/League,
but since this one doesn't depend on any of them (unlike e.g. php-league-uri)
it should own it as well. Will fix.
>
> > # Please preserve the changelog entries
> I do not understand this request in combination with %autochangelog
Once the package is actually build, rpmautospec will replace the macro with the
actually (build from git) changelog. Hence, anybody messing around with a
specfile they got from a source package should still preserve that changelog if
possible.
> 3.
> Guidelines say
> "The composer.json file is not used,
> and should be installed as %doc
> as it provides useful information about the package and its dependencies.".
> I am not certain how to interpret this statement.
> Since it says should, I do not think it is a blocking issue.
> However, it clearly recommends installing the file as %doc
> instead of dropping it completely
> like is done here.
> Perhaps it could be added as %doc as suggested?
This is an oversight on my part. The composer file is useful (even if you don't
use composer) because it e.g. tells the user which namespaces the PHP classes
are in, where to find further documentation etc. I'll include it.
> 4.
> > : No tests implemented
I'll include the tests by using a git checkout instead of the prepare tarball,
as discussed here https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1982616
(In reply to Otto Urpelainen from comment #2)
> 1.
> A release is packaged, but it downloaded by commit id rather than tag or
> GitHub release. Nothing wrong with that, I am just curious why it is done
> like that here?
Because people most often look for releases etc. via composer/packagist.org,
and that references packages via commit id:
https://packagist.org/packages/beberlei/assert
Packaging it this way a) makes life easier because all composer packages look
very similar and b) ensures that no matter what upstream does in their git
repo, the package people get via composer is the same they get via the repos.
> 2.
> > Autoloader: /usr/share/php/League/UriInterfaces/autoload.php
> I am surprised that this information is important enough
> to be added to description.
> Why?
Because you need to know where the autoloader is in order to actually use this
package in a project, and its location standardized. No searchpath,
unfortunately.
> Also, there would be a slight readability gain
> from formatting this differently,
> so it would not look so much like a specfile tag.
Good point, I hadn't noticed that.
--
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 1982616] Review Request: php-beberlei-assert - Thin assertion library for input validation in business models
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1982616 Christopher Engelhard changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(c...@lcts.de) | --- Comment #6 from Christopher Engelhard --- Thanks, Otto, Remi for the comments. > 1. > > License:BSD > That is what LICENSE and composer.json files say. > Source files claim to be under MIT > and then refer to nonexistent file LICENSE.txt. > Even though any possible interpretation is allowed in Fedora, > the license is unclear. > Upstream must be contacted about this unclarity > so that LICENSE file and source file headers can be made to agree. > However, since it is quite clear that BSD 2-Clause is the intended license, > I do consider it necessary to wait for a fix > before this package can be added to fedora. That makes sense. There is already an old issue regarding this upstream [1], which unfortunately hasn't been responded to. I'll see if I can get hold of the owner, they're still quite active on Github. > 2. > > : No tests implemented > Same comment as for php-leagure-uri-interfaces [1]: > There are tests upstream, but they remove them from Git archives. > I would like to seem them ran, but not sure how to make that happen. > [1]: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1982635 Here I can use a local git checkout to create a source tarball that includes the tests (See for example here: [2]), as suggested by Remi. [1] https://github.com/beberlei/assert/issues/221 [2] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/php-guzzlehttp-guzzle6/blob/rawhide/f/php-guzzlehttp-guzzle6.spec -- 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 1978395] Review Request: rubygem-sync - A module that provides a two-phase lock with a counter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1978395
Christopher Engelhard changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
|needinfo?(c...@lcts.de) |
--- Comment #3 from Christopher Engelhard ---
(In reply to Otto Urpelainen from comment #2)
> This is a problem that affects all or almost all rubygem packages.
> When I was creating this package, I asked about font bunding
> in the ruby-sig mailing list [1], you can find more information there.
Thanks, I'll take a look.
> The license does not belong to specfile License field,
> because that is only for the main ("binary") rpm
> as described in Licensing Guidelines section License: field [4].
Right, sorry, my mistake.
> Do you accept this explanation?
> We can also continue the discussion on the ruby-sig list
> since this is relevant affects very many rubygem packages.
Yes, this seems fine. Probably a good idea to come up with some sort of policy
on this at some point, but since you already brought the overall issue to the
ruby-sig list I'd say we're good here.
Thanks for the packaging effort & for reporting all these issues etc. upstream/
to the discussion lists.
--
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 976793] Review Request: lunchbox - C++ library for multi-threaded programming
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976793 --- Comment #31 from Jaroslav Škarvada --- (In reply to Otto Urpelainen from comment #30) > The servus update needed for this > barely missed the last compose before mass rebuild. > I will wait until the next compose is available > for the (hopefully) final review run. > > I wonder if the failing tests could be disabled > only for the architecture where they fail? > Just thinking aloud here, > I do not see this as a blocker in any way. New version: Spec URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/lunchbox/lunchbox.spec SRPM URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/lunchbox/lunchbox-1.17.0-4.fc33.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1738290] Review Request: libcamera - A library to support complex camera ISPs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1738290 --- Comment #18 from Javier Martinez Canillas --- (In reply to Peter Robinson from comment #17) > > I wonder how we should proceed, if having a downstream patch to add a .so > > name > > versioning as suggested in Comment #3 (and deal with any fallout caused by > > the > > API/ABI to change before they cut a versioned release) or just wait until > > they > > do that... > > The problem we have with patching it downstream if we end up with a > conflicting versioning, or if we have to patch any app/library that may > currently support libcamera to support the versioned libraries. > > I suppose the real question is what users outside of the libcamera included > utilities do we currently have to utilise libcamera? AKA what currently has > support for it? The only user I know about (because the GStreamer element is currently part of libcamera as well) is PipeWire (when built with -Dlibcamera=true): https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/pipewire/pipewire/-/tree/master/spa/plugins/libcamera Since having libcamera is the only way to support the camera in some devices (i.e: rpi4), I think that I'm leaning towards carry a downstream patch in the meantime. I'm happy to take over this pkg and also coordinate with Wim for the PipeWire bits. -- 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 1738290] Review Request: libcamera - A library to support complex camera ISPs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1738290 --- Comment #17 from Peter Robinson --- > I wonder how we should proceed, if having a downstream patch to add a .so > name > versioning as suggested in Comment #3 (and deal with any fallout caused by > the > API/ABI to change before they cut a versioned release) or just wait until > they > do that... The problem we have with patching it downstream if we end up with a conflicting versioning, or if we have to patch any app/library that may currently support libcamera to support the versioned libraries. I suppose the real question is what users outside of the libcamera included utilities do we currently have to utilise libcamera? AKA what currently has support for it? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1858449] Review Request: perl-MooX-TypeTiny - Optimized type checks for Moo + Type::Tiny
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1858449 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(ppi...@redhat.com |needinfo?(rc040203@freenet. |) |de) --- Comment #3 from Petr Pisar --- Ralf, any progress with this package? -- 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 1858449] Review Request: perl-MooX-TypeTiny - Optimized type checks for Moo + Type::Tiny
Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Petr Pisar has canceled Package Review 's request for Petr Pisar 's needinfo: Bug 1858449: Review Request: perl-MooX-TypeTiny - Optimized type checks for Moo + Type::Tiny https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1858449 --- Comment #3 from Petr Pisar --- Ralf, any progress with this package? ___ 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 1738290] Review Request: libcamera - A library to support complex camera ISPs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1738290 Javier Martinez Canillas changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fmart...@redhat.com --- Comment #16 from Javier Martinez Canillas --- (In reply to Peter Robinson from comment #12) > I'll update this review shortly. > > Still no versioned releases as yet, I'll reach out to upstream and see what > their latest plans are, it's been a little while since I checked in with > them. I've asked about this in the #libcamera channel today and the maintainer told me the following: | javierm: very very tentatively, I'd say in ~6 months I wonder how we should proceed, if having a downstream patch to add a .so name versioning as suggested in Comment #3 (and deal with any fallout caused by the API/ABI to change before they cut a versioned release) or just wait until they do that... -- 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 1982624] Review Request: php-giggsey-locale - Locale functions required by libphonenumber-for-php
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1982624 --- Comment #2 from Remi Collet --- Not running upstream test suite is indeed only recommended, not mandatory But the effort worth it (and is quite simple) IMHO, Unbundling without CI doesn't make sense -- 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 976793] Review Request: lunchbox - C++ library for multi-threaded programming
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976793 --- Comment #30 from Otto Urpelainen --- The servus update needed for this barely missed the last compose before mass rebuild. I will wait until the next compose is available for the (hopefully) final review run. I wonder if the failing tests could be disabled only for the architecture where they fail? Just thinking aloud here, I do not see this as a blocker in any way. -- 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 1982624] Review Request: php-giggsey-locale - Locale functions required by libphonenumber-for-php
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1982624 Tomas Korbar changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Tomas Korbar --- Hi, To be honest, this package looks ok to me already. I did not find any violation of packaging guidelines, thus giving 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
