[Bug 2151458] Review Request: ipa-exgothic-fonts - Japanese Gothic-typeface OpenType font by IPA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151458 --- Comment #1 from Akira TAGOH --- This is actually package renaming from ipa-ex-gothic-fonts due to the fonts packaging guidelines update. -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151458 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2151458] New: Review Request: ipa-exgothic-fonts - Japanese Gothic-typeface OpenType font by IPA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151458 Bug ID: 2151458 Summary: Review Request: ipa-exgothic-fonts - Japanese Gothic-typeface OpenType font by IPA Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ta...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://tagoh.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ipa-exgothic-fonts/ipa-exgothic-fonts.spec SRPM URL: https://tagoh.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ipa-exgothic-fonts/ipa-exgothic-fonts-004.01-10.fc38.src.rpm Description: IPAex Font is a Japanese OpenType fonts that is JIS X 0213:2004 compliant, provided by Information-technology Promotion Agency, Japan. This package contains Gothic (sans-serif) style font. Fedora Account System Username: tagoh -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151458 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2151315] Review Request: autorsync - Automate execution of various rsync commands
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151315 Vitaly Zaitsev changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|vit...@easycoding.org -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151315 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2151315] Review Request: autorsync - Automate execution of various rsync commands
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151315 --- Comment #5 from Vitaly Zaitsev --- > BuildRequires: python3dist(jinja2) > BuildRequires: python3dist(pyyaml) No longer required. %pyproject_buildrequires will discover everything automatically. -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151315 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2133789] Review Request: media-downloader - GUI frontend to multiple CLI based downloading programs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133789 --- Comment #5 from MartinKG --- @Jakub Thank you for completing the review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133789 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2151236] Review Request: rust-pep440 - Parse and compare Python PEP440 style version numbers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151236 --- Comment #4 from Lumír Balhar --- All right, thanks! Now, I'm removing the Python script in %prep before %cargo_prep. -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151236 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2142653] Review Request: lua-cldr - Lua interface to Unicode CLDR data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142653 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2022-dc8f7c0940 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-dc8f7c0940 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-dc8f7c0940 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 always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142653 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2142671] Review Request: lua-cosmo - Safe templates for Lua
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142671 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2022-d6f4177eba has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-d6f4177eba \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-d6f4177eba 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142671 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2151235] Review Request: purple-googlechat - Google Chat plugin for libpurple
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151235 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2022-9375a9deeb has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-9375a9deeb \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-9375a9deeb 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 always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151235 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2142671] Review Request: lua-cosmo - Safe templates for Lua
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142671 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2022-6109861645 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-6109861645 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-6109861645 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142671 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2142653] Review Request: lua-cldr - Lua interface to Unicode CLDR data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142653 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2022-6d67756c1c has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-6d67756c1c \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-6d67756c1c 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142653 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2085444] Review Request: sgx-sdk - Software Guard eXtension software development kit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2085444 --- Comment #32 from Yunying Sun --- (In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #26) > > License:BSD and "Redistributable, no modification permitted" and > > MIT and ASL 2.0 and NCSA/MIT and CC0 and FBSDDL and BSD and OpenSSL and > > zlib and GPL and BSD/GPLv2 and EPL-1.0 > > Fedora has switched to SPDX license expression in the meantime. Please see > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/allowed-licenses/ > > The "Redistributable, no modification permitted" thing was never supposed to > be in quotes in the first place, but with SPDX this might be hard to > express. I recommend asking for help at the Fedora legal mailing list: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/legal.lists.fedoraproject.org/ > Thank you Miro for the review. For the Intel signed binaries license issue, we are working internally with Intel legal folks to fix it. A thread for this license discussion in Fedora legal mail list: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/le...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/W2FYSZ42RMX4IGHK3YNUXWBXUATSWTD6/ -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2085444 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2066040] Review Request: rust-libadwaita-sys - FFI bindings for libadwaita
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2066040 Bug 2066040 depends on bug 177841, which changed state. Bug 177841 Summary: Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2066040 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 1343977] Review Request: rubygem-asciidoctor-mallard - A Project Mallard converter for AsciiDoc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343977 Bug 1343977 depends on bug 177841, which changed state. Bug 177841 Summary: Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343977 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2150547] Review Request: pcem - IBM PC emulator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2150547 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2022-0b5746bee3 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2150547 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2150545] Review Request: xtideuniversalbios - XTIDE Universal BIOS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2150545 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2022-0b5746bee3 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2150545 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 1333928] Review Request: python-searchlightclient - OpenStack Indexing and Search API Client Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1333928 Bug 1333928 depends on bug 177841, which changed state. Bug 177841 Summary: Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1333928 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2150546] Review Request: 8088_bios - BIOS for Intel 8088 based computers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2150546 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2022-0b5746bee3 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2150546 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 1859627] Review Request: arm-none-eabi-gdb - GDB for (remote) debugging ARM bare-metal targets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1859627 Bug 1859627 depends on bug 177841, which changed state. Bug 177841 Summary: Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1859627 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2066122] Review Request: rust-libadwaita - Rust bindings for libadwaita
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2066122 Bug 2066122 depends on bug 177841, which changed state. Bug 177841 Summary: Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2066122 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 1611805] Review Request: tendrl-selinux - Independent SELinux policy for Tendrl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1611805 Bug 1611805 depends on bug 177841, which changed state. Bug 177841 Summary: Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1611805 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2151236] Review Request: rust-pep440 - Parse and compare Python PEP440 style version numbers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151236 --- Comment #3 from Fabio Valentini --- Yes. In this case, I think removing the tests/ directory would be fine, since the files are not referenced explicitly in Cargo.toml (i.e. the tests there are only found by cargo autodiscovery in the usual "tests" directory). But in general, just removing broken shebangs or stray executable bits should be safer, and not break builds of the crate. Or, in this case, you could just remove the "gen_test_cases.py" script (assuming it's the file with the unwanted shebang), since it's neither executed during tests, nor needed for building the crate - i.e. add `rm tests/gen_test_cases.py` between %autosetup and %cargo_prep. Doing it in %prep also ensures that if removing the file has any negative effects, they also happen during the package's build, and not only in subsequent builds of this crate as dependency of another package. Other than that, the package looks good to me, and I'll approve it once that's sorted out. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151236 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2150588] Review Request: python-jupyter-server - The backend for Jupyter web applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2150588 --- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-jupyter-server -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2150588 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2141740] Review Request: java-latest-openjdk-portable - reusable OpenJDK STS tarball
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2141740 --- Comment #6 from jiri vanek --- Package Review == Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed = MUST items = C/C++: [x]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [-]: Package contains no static executables. As approved: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/JdkInTreeLibsAndStdclibStatic [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU Affero General Public License v3.0 or later", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2 Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU General Public License v2.0 only", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later GNU General Public License v2.0 only [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later GNU General Public License v2.0 only", "Unicode License Agreement - Data Files and Software (2016)", "*No copyright* BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v2.0 only", "*No copyright* [generated file]", "BSD 3-Clause License", "Universal Permissive License v1.0", "GNU General Public License v2.0 only [generated file]", "Cryptix Public License", "BSD 2-Clause License", "*No copyright* Mozilla Public License 2.0", "zlib License", "Freetype Project License", "MIT License", "MIT (old) ISC License", "MIT Open Group variant", "Apache License 2.0", "W3C Software Notice and License (2002-12-31) W3C Software Notice and License (1998-07-20)", "Standard ML of New Jersey License", "Apache License 1.1", "BSD 3-Clause License Apache License 2.0", "BSD 2-Clause License GNU General Public License v2.0 only", "*No copyright* Public domain GNU General Public License v2.0 only", "*No copyright* Public domain GNU General Public License v2.0 only [generated file]", "MIT (old)", "ISC License", "MIT License GNU General Public License v2.0 only", "GNU General Public License, Version 3", "BSD 3-Clause License GNU General Public License v2.0 only", "zlib License GNU General Public License v2.0 only", "*No copyright* MIT License GNU General Public License v2.0 only", "libpng License GNU General Public License v2.0 only", "MIT Open Group variant GNU General Public License v2.0 only", "BSD 3-Clause License GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "Public domain GNU General Public License v2.0 only", "Unicode License Agreement - Data Files and Software (2015) GNU General Public License v2.0 only", "Freetype Project License [generated file]", "W3C License GNU General Public License v2.0 only", "Khronos License GNU General Public License v2.0 only", "Apache License 1.1 GNU General Public License v2.0 only", "W3C Software Notice and License (1998-07-20)", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Freetype Project License XFree86 License", "NTP License", "W3C License", "*No copyright* Public domain". 7729 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jvanek/2141740-java-latest-openjdk-portable/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]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/jvm [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [-]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. Note: Especially check following dirs for bundled code: /home/jvanek/2141740-java-latest-openjdk-portable/upstream- unpacked/Source0/openjdk/src/java.xml/share/classes/org/xml/sax/ext, /home/jvanek/2141740-java-latest-openjdk-portable/upstream- unpacked/Source0/openjdk/src/java.base/windows/native/include, /home/jvanek/2141740-java-latest-openjdk-portable/upstream- unpacked/Source0/openjdk/test/hotspot/jtreg/runtime/cds/appcds/jigsaw/classpathtests/src/sun/nio/cs/ext, /home/jvanek/2141740-java-latest-openjdk-portable/upstream- unpacked/Source0/openjdk/src/java.naming/share/classes/com/sun/jndi/ldap/ext, /home/jvanek/2141740-jav
[Bug 2151236] Review Request: rust-pep440 - Parse and compare Python PEP440 style version numbers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151236 --- Comment #2 from Lumír Balhar --- Interesting, I did not know that this might break anything. I did it because one of the brp scripts failed because one of the Python scripts in tests contain a wrong shebang. I thought that there is no reason to ship tests with the package so instead of fixing or removing the shebang I've removed all the test files. Do I understand correctly that fixing the shebang is a better idea? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151236 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2151315] Review Request: autorsync - Automate execution of various rsync commands
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151315 --- Comment #4 from Jonny Heggheim --- Updated the spect+srpm to new Python packaging guidelines, same urls: Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/autorsync.spec SRPM URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/autorsync-1.0.5-1.fc36.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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151315 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2151315] Review Request: autorsync - Automate execution of various rsync commands
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151315 --- Comment #3 from Jonny Heggheim --- Thanks, I did not know that they were mandatory -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151315 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 1739851] Review Request: gnome-radio - GNOME Radio
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1739851 --- Comment #10 from Ole Aamot --- A new, stable version of gnome-radio is 64.0 available from https://www.gnomeradio.org/src/gnome-radio-64.0.tar.xz Mirror: https://download.gnome.org/sources/gnome-radio/64/gnome-radio-64.0.tar.xz x86_64 RPM: https://www.gnomeradio.org/~ole/fedora/RPMS/x86_64/gnome-radio-64.0-1.fc37.x86_64.rpm Source RPM: https://www.gnomeradio.org/~ole/fedora/SRPMS/gnome-radio-64.0-1.fc37.src.rpm Fedora SPEC: https://www.gnomeradio.org/~ole/fedora/SPECS/gnome-radio.spec -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1739851 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2133789] Review Request: media-downloader - GUI frontend to multiple CLI based downloading programs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133789 Jakub Kadlčík changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133789 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2133789] Review Request: media-downloader - GUI frontend to multiple CLI based downloading programs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133789
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Kadlčík ---
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, Version
2", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "*No copyright* GNU
General Public License v2.0 or later". 55 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jkadlcik/2133789-media-
downloader/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.
[-]: 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 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: 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 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).
[?]: 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.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[Bug 2151315] Review Request: autorsync - Automate execution of various rsync commands
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151315 Vitaly Zaitsev changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vit...@easycoding.org Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value --- Comment #2 from Vitaly Zaitsev --- This SPEC uses legacy Python guidelines. You have to port it to a modern one: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/ Older guidelines are only allowed for existing packages: > Older guidelines are still being kept up to date, and existing packages MAY > use them instead of this document -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151315 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2150588] Review Request: python-jupyter-server - The backend for Jupyter web applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2150588
Karolina Surma changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ksu...@redhat.com
CC||ksu...@redhat.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Karolina Surma ---
A tip: RPM 4.17+ allows a more "natural" bcond syntax
(https://rpm-software-management.github.io/rpm/manual/conditionalbuilds.html)
which seems to me easier to grasp.
We established that there's a need to bootstrap the package because of the
circular dependency, I checked that all tests pass when pytest-jupyter is in
the environment.
Running jupyter-server works. Seeing the console output reminded me that we've
undefined the macro %_py3_shebang_s in all the other Jupyter packages to enable
working with extensions installed to user locations with pip. Maybe it'd be
good to have it also in the new packages, if that's an ongoing use case.
I don't consider none of the above a blocker, please correct as you see fit.
Package APPROVED.
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", "BSD 3-Clause License", "MIT License".
237 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/ksurma/tmp/2150588-python-jupyter-server/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[-]: 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
packag
[Bug 2151315] Review Request: autorsync - Automate execution of various rsync commands
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151315 --- Comment #1 from Jonny Heggheim --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=95021873 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151315 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2151315] New: Review Request: autorsync - Automate execution of various rsync commands
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151315 Bug ID: 2151315 Summary: Review Request: autorsync - Automate execution of various rsync commands Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: heg...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/autorsync.spec SRPM URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/autorsync-1.0.5-1.fc36.src.rpm Description: Command to automate execution of various rsync commands based on profiles defined on a YAML configuration file. Fedora Account System Username: jonny -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151315 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2142391] Review Request: git-credential-oauth - A Git credential helper that securely authenticates to GitHub, GitLab, BitBucket and other forges using OAuth
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142391 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2022-12-06 17:19:38 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2022-fc5b7cf40d has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142391 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2142391] Review Request: git-credential-oauth - A Git credential helper that securely authenticates to GitHub, GitLab, BitBucket and other forges using OAuth
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142391 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2022-fc5b7cf40d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-fc5b7cf40d -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142391 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2150574] Review Request: python-conda-package-streaming - Extract metadata from remote conda packages without downloading whole file
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2150574 --- Comment #2 from Wayne Sun --- With run rpmlint on the src rpm: # rpmlint results/python-conda-package-streaming-0.7.0-1.fc38.src.rpm === rpmlint session starts === rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1 python-conda-package-streaming.src: W: strange-permission conda-package-streaming-0.7.0.tar.gz 660 python-conda-package-streaming.src: W: strange-permission python-conda-package-streaming.spec 660 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 s there is complain about permission, according to: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#strange-permission it recommend update spec which I don't think necessary. while build srpm on my laptop and check with rpmlint don't have this issue: # rpmbuild -bs srpm/python-conda-package-streaming.spec setting SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH=1670025600 Wrote: /root/rpmbuild/SRPMS/python-conda-package-streaming-0.7.0-1.fc36.src.rpm # rpmlint /root/rpmbuild/SRPMS/python-conda-package-streaming-0.7.0-1.fc36.src.rpm === rpmlint session starts === rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 s so it's not the issue with spec, the src rpm might not build properly. @Miro any comment on this? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2150574 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2151235] Review Request: purple-googlechat - Google Chat plugin for libpurple
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151235 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2022-9375a9deeb has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-9375a9deeb -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151235 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2151236] Review Request: rust-pep440 - Parse and compare Python PEP440 style version numbers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151236
Fabio Valentini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|decatho...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
CC||decatho...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Fabio Valentini ---
> # Do not ship tests
> rm -r %{buildroot}/%{crate_instdir}/tests
Where did you get this from? In general, this is not necessary, and in some
cases, doing this might even break builds of this crate as dependency of other
packages. Since tests are usually just a few 100s to 1000s of bytes, we don't
bother dealing with the potential for breaking things by removing the files.
--
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151236
___
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, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2151289] New: Review Request: numberstation - TOTP Authenticator application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151289 Bug ID: 2151289 Summary: Review Request: numberstation - TOTP Authenticator application Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: li...@lihis.net QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://pagure.io/numberstation/blob/master/f/numberstation.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lihis/numberstation/fedora-37-x86_64/05073138-numberstation/numberstation-1.2.0-1.fc37.src.rpm Description: TOTP Authenticator application designed with mobile usage in mind Fedora Account System Username: lihis This is my first package and I need a sponsor. Package successfully built on COPR for F37 and Rawhide: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/lihis/numberstation/build/5073138/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151289 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2103477] Review Request: rust-normpath - More reliable path manipulation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2103477 --- Comment #9 from Fabio Valentini --- https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/11035 -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2103477 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2151235] Review Request: purple-googlechat - Google Chat plugin for libpurple
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151235 --- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/purple-googlechat -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151235 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2149698] Review Request: sile - The SILE Typesetter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2149698 Bug 2149698 depends on bug 2143382, which changed state. Bug 2143382 Summary: Review Request: lua-luarepl - REPL.lua - a reusable Lua REPL written in Lua https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143382 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2149698 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2143382] Review Request: lua-luarepl - REPL.lua - a reusable Lua REPL written in Lua
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143382 Jonny Heggheim changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Last Closed||2022-12-06 15:13:34 --- Comment #10 from Jonny Heggheim --- Updated for Fedora 36 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143382 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2149698] Review Request: sile - The SILE Typesetter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2149698 Bug 2149698 depends on bug 2142786, which changed state. Bug 2142786 Summary: Review Request: lua-epnf - Extended PEG Notation Format (easy grammars for LPeg) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142786 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2149698 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2142786] Review Request: lua-epnf - Extended PEG Notation Format (easy grammars for LPeg)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142786 Jonny Heggheim changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Last Closed||2022-12-06 15:05:49 --- Comment #10 from Jonny Heggheim --- Updated for Fedora 36 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142786 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2142798] Review Request: lua-fluent - Lua implementation of Project Fluent
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142798 Bug 2142798 depends on bug 2142786, which changed state. Bug 2142786 Summary: Review Request: lua-epnf - Extended PEG Notation Format (easy grammars for LPeg) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142786 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142798 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2149698] Review Request: sile - The SILE Typesetter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2149698 Bug 2149698 depends on bug 2143056, which changed state. Bug 2143056 Summary: Review Request: lua-cliargs - A command-line argument parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143056 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2149698 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2143056] Review Request: lua-cliargs - A command-line argument parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143056 Jonny Heggheim changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2022-12-06 15:04:40 --- Comment #10 from Jonny Heggheim --- Updated for Fedora 36 -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143056 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2143351] Review Request: lua-vstruct - Lua library to manipulate binary data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143351 Jonny Heggheim changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2022-12-06 15:03:55 --- Comment #10 from Jonny Heggheim --- Updated for Fedora 36 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143351 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2149698] Review Request: sile - The SILE Typesetter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2149698 Bug 2149698 depends on bug 2143351, which changed state. Bug 2143351 Summary: Review Request: lua-vstruct - Lua library to manipulate binary data https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143351 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2149698 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2142671] Review Request: lua-cosmo - Safe templates for Lua
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142671 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2022-6109861645 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-6109861645 -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142671 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2142671] Review Request: lua-cosmo - Safe templates for Lua
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142671 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2022-d6f4177eba has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-d6f4177eba -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142671 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2142653] Review Request: lua-cldr - Lua interface to Unicode CLDR data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142653 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2022-6d67756c1c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-6d67756c1c -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142653 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2142653] Review Request: lua-cldr - Lua interface to Unicode CLDR data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142653 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2022-dc8f7c0940 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-dc8f7c0940 -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142653 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2144864] Review Request: safeint - Class library for C++ that manages integer overflows
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2144864 --- Comment #4 from Diego Herrera --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/dherrera/SafeInt/fedora-rawhide-aarch64/05089023-safeint/safeint.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/dherrera/SafeInt/fedora-rawhide-aarch64/05089023-safeint/safeint-3.0.27-4.fc38.src.rpm 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2144864 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2150586] Review Request: python-notebook-shim - A shim layer for notebook traits and config
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2150586 --- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-notebook-shim -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2150586 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2142653] Review Request: lua-cldr - Lua interface to Unicode CLDR data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142653 --- Comment #9 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/lua-cldr -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142653 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2142671] Review Request: lua-cosmo - Safe templates for Lua
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142671 --- Comment #10 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/lua-cosmo -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142671 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2143005] Review Request: xbyak_aarch64 - A C++ JIT assembler for AArch64
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143005 Benson Muite changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(t...@redhat.com) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143005 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2148616] Review request: clBLAS An OpenCL BLAS library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2148616 Benson Muite changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(benson_muite@emai | |lplus.org) | --- Comment #6 from Benson Muite --- Thanks. Will go through this in the next day or so. -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2148616 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2143315] Review Request: rubygem-gtk4 - Ruby/GTK4 is a Ruby binding of GTK+-4.x
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143315 --- Comment #9 from Benson Muite --- The licenses. Asked on the mailing list. Probably need to update the packaging documentation with this information, as well as font situation. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143315 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2149834] Review Request: tuner - Minimalist radio station player
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2149834 --- Comment #2 from Benson Muite --- Need another day or so. Thanks for your patience and making this available to Fedora linux users. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2149834 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2143563] Review Request: lua-timerwheel - Pure Lua timerwheel implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143563 Benson Muite changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(benson_muite@emai | |lplus.org) | --- Comment #4 from Benson Muite --- Need another day or so. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143563 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2151235] Review Request: purple-googlechat - Google Chat plugin for libpurple
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151235 Vasiliy Glazov changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151235 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2151235] Review Request: purple-googlechat - Google Chat plugin for libpurple
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151235
Vasiliy Glazov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Vasiliy Glazov ---
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]: 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 v3.0 or
later", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 3", "GNU
General Public License v2.0 or later". 22 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/vascom/2151235-purple-
googlechat/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.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in pidgin-
googlechat
[x]: Package functions as des
[Bug 2142671] Review Request: lua-cosmo - Safe templates for Lua
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142671 --- Comment #9 from Jonny Heggheim --- I think it is good with feedback and discussion on corner cases where we can try to find the best solution. Again, thanks for all the reviews. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142671 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2142653] Review Request: lua-cldr - Lua interface to Unicode CLDR data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142653 --- Comment #8 from Jonny Heggheim --- Yes, it is nice when upstream is responsive :) Thanks again for another 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142653 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2151236] New: Review Request: rust-pep440 - Parse and compare Python PEP440 style version numbers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151236 Bug ID: 2151236 Summary: Review Request: rust-pep440 - Parse and compare Python PEP440 style version numbers 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/rust-pep440.spec SRPM URL: https://lbalhar.fedorapeople.org/rust-pep440-0.2.0-1.fc37.src.rpm Description: Parse and compare Python PEP440 style version numbers. Fedora Account System Username: lbalhar -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151236 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2151235] Review Request: purple-googlechat - Google Chat plugin for libpurple
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151235 Vasiliy Glazov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||vasc...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|vasc...@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151235 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2151235] New: Review Request: purple-googlechat - Google Chat plugin for libpurple
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151235 Bug ID: 2151235 Summary: Review Request: purple-googlechat - Google Chat plugin for libpurple Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: vit...@easycoding.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://xvitaly.fedorapeople.org/for-review/purple-googlechat.spec SRPM URL: https://xvitaly.fedorapeople.org/for-review/purple-googlechat-0-1.20221106gitb6b824a.fc37.src.rpm Description: Google Chat plugin for libpurple Fedora Account System Username: xvitaly -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151235 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2142653] Review Request: lua-cldr - Lua interface to Unicode CLDR data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142653 Arthur Bols changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED|POST --- Comment #7 from Arthur Bols --- That was quick! :) 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142653 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2142671] Review Request: lua-cosmo - Safe templates for Lua
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142671 Arthur Bols changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED|POST --- Comment #8 from Arthur Bols --- You right, that hadn't occurred to me. I asked for feedback on #fedora-devel because I wasn't quite sure what to do with it, but I hadn't received an answer yet. It's only a small nitpick anyway. Everything looks good, 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142671 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2103477] Review Request: rust-normpath - More reliable path manipulation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2103477 Lumír Balhar changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lbal...@redhat.com --- Comment #8 from Lumír Balhar --- *** Bug 2151234 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2103477 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2151234] Review Request: rust-normpath - More reliable path manipulation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151234 Lumír Balhar changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|NEW |CLOSED Last Closed||2022-12-06 12:40:38 --- Comment #1 from Lumír Balhar --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 2103477 *** -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151234 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2151234] New: Review Request: rust-normpath - More reliable path manipulation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151234 Bug ID: 2151234 Summary: Review Request: rust-normpath - More reliable path manipulation 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/rust-normpath.spec SRPM URL: https://lbalhar.fedorapeople.org/rust-normpath-0.3.2-1.fc37.src.rpm Description: More reliable path manipulation. Fedora Account System Username: lbalhar -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151234 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2142671] Review Request: lua-cosmo - Safe templates for Lua
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142671 --- Comment #7 from Jonny Heggheim --- Updated the spec+srpm: Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/lua-cosmo.spec SRPM URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/lua-cosmo-16.06.04-1.fc36.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142671 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2142671] Review Request: lua-cosmo - Safe templates for Lua
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142671
--- Comment #6 from Jonny Heggheim ---
> You could do something like this:
> https://principis.fedorapeople.org/lua-cosmo.spec
I feel that is getting too hackish and harder to maintain.
> ln -s ../../doc/%{name}/cosmo.md LICENSE.md
For me it does not make sense why %buildroot is not used in the %install
section. The doc location is now hard-coded instead of a macro.
If the user install with --nodocs flag, then the %license link is dangling.
> I noticed you've removed the index.html from %doc, was this by mistake? I
> believe it's redundant so it should be fine to leave it out.
I had a look and noticed that they were the "same", but after some thinking I
lean towards that it is best to do the same as opensuse:
> %license %{luarocks_treedir}/%{mod_name}/%{rock_version}/doc/cosmo.md
> %docdir %{luarocks_treedir}/%{mod_name}/%{rock_version}/doc
https://build.opensuse.org/package/view_file/devel:languages:lua/lua-cosmo/lua-cosmo.spec?expand=1
Include all files documentation in the doc folder, since upstream have included
it in their repo and published it on luarocks.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142671
___
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, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2150574] Review Request: python-conda-package-streaming - Extract metadata from remote conda packages without downloading whole file
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2150574
Wayne Sun changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||g...@redhat.com,
||mhron...@redhat.com
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #1 from Wayne Sun ---
This is informal review as I'm not sponsored.
1) The upstream is BSD 3-Clause License so in the spec the SPDX name should be
BSD-3-Clause rather than BSD, detail could be found in:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_field
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/allowed-licenses/
2) [OPINION] not use the %{srcname} in URL for easier access
3) [OPINION] define variable for description
4) [OPINION] use two empty lines between blocks from %prep to the end
5) no need to specify %license under %doc as it's handled by %{pyproject_files}
Please check the fedora example file with 2,3,4,5:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_example_spec_file
6) Use %pytest in %check which no need to specify the $PYTHONPATH
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_pytest
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2150574
___
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, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2150586] Review Request: python-notebook-shim - A shim layer for notebook traits and config
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2150586
Karolina Surma changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ksu...@redhat.com
Flags||fedora-review+
Status|NEW |POST
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ksu...@redhat.com
--- Comment #1 from Karolina Surma ---
All looking good. Maybe it would be good to add an explanation why there is
Requires on python-jupyter-filesystem which may not be so obvious at the first
glance.
Package APPROVED.
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", "BSD 3-Clause License". 22 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/ksurma/tmp/2150586-python-notebook-shim/results/2150586-python-
notebook-shim/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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]: No %config files under /usr.
[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.
[-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separa
[Bug 2150506] Review Request: python-pypresence - Discord Rich Presence Client in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2150506 --- Comment #12 from Steve Cossette --- I went ahead and updated the spec to use the MIT license scheme (Even though the LICENSE file doesn't reflect this yet) and changed the source url path to what you suggested. I appreciate your help on this, thank you! -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2150506 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2142653] Review Request: lua-cldr - Lua interface to Unicode CLDR data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142653 --- Comment #6 from Jonny Heggheim --- Upstream have now included the license text and made a new release. Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/lua-cldr.spec SRPM URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/lua-cldr-0.3.0-1.fc36.src.rpm Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=95008805 -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142653 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2150506] Review Request: python-pypresence - Discord Rich Presence Client in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2150506 --- Comment #11 from Steve Cossette --- No this isnt time sensitive. I'm heading to vacation tomorrow but i will have my laptop with me so if this gets approved by then i can make this package from the hotel room. 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2150506 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2085444] Review Request: sgx-sdk - Software Guard eXtension software development kit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2085444 --- Comment #31 from Miro Hrončok --- > Just want to make sure it is a must rule we need to follow? Yes. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_compiler_flags """Compilers used to build packages must honor the applicable compiler flags set in the system rpm configuration.""" The documentation is at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/redhat-rpm-config/blob/rawhide/f/buildflags.md As said, even without %_auto_set_build_flags this spec is likely already using the flags via %make_build anyway. -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2085444 ___ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2150506] Review Request: python-pypresence - Discord Rich Presence Client in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2150506
--- Comment #10 from Miro Hrončok ---
It seems that upstream considers this MIT. Let's give them a couple of days so
they can revert the LICENSE change. Or is this review time sensitive?
--
Tip:
Use this source:
Source:
https://github.com/qwertyquerty/pypresence/archive/%{version}/pypresence-%{version}.tar.gz
When downloaded, the filename is called pypresence-4.2.1.tar.gz which is
consistent with what is in the tarball and easier to find when the sources
directory is shared between multiple packages.
Also, the example removes a needless enumeration of the source.
A partial output of Fedora-Review:
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[x] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[ ]: 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: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright*
MIT License", "MIT License". 85 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in
/home/churchyard/rpmbuild/FedoraReview/2150506-python-
pypresence/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upst
