[Bug 2119494] Review Request: aubit4gl - Informix-4GL compatible compiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2119494 --- Comment #107 from Benson Muite --- Thanks for the reminder. Checking the package. -- 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=2119494 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202119494%23c107 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2215710] Review Request: python-diskcache - Python disk-backed cache
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2215710 Benson Muite changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(heg...@gmail.com) --- Comment #5 from Benson Muite --- @heg...@gmail.com Thanks. Can you leave yourself as assignee? -- 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=2215710 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202215710%23c5 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2217729] Review Request: ocaml-yaml - Parse and generate YAML 1.1/1.2 files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217729 Fedora Review Service changed: What|Removed |Added URL||https://avsm.github.io/ocam ||l-yaml/ --- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6117193 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2217729-ocaml-yaml/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06117193-ocaml-yaml/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string. -- 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=2217729 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202217729%23c1 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2217730] Review Request: ocaml-ppx-deriving-yaml - Derive conversion functions between OCaml types and YAML
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217730 Fedora Review Service changed: What|Removed |Added URL||https://github.com/patricof ||erris/ppx_deriving_yaml --- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6117194 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2217730-ocaml-ppx-deriving-yaml/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06117194-ocaml-ppx-deriving-yaml/builder-live.log.gz Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide. - If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string. -- 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=2217730 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202217730%23c1 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2217729] Review Request: ocaml-yaml - Parse and generate YAML 1.1/1.2 files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217729 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||2217730 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217730 [Bug 2217730] Review Request: ocaml-ppx-deriving-yaml - Derive conversion functions between OCaml types and YAML -- 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=2217729 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2217730] New: Review Request: ocaml-ppx-deriving-yaml - Derive conversion functions between OCaml types and YAML
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217730 Bug ID: 2217730 Summary: Review Request: ocaml-ppx-deriving-yaml - Derive conversion functions between OCaml types and YAML Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: loganje...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/ocaml-ppx-deriving-yaml/ocaml-ppx-deriving-yaml.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/ocaml-ppx-deriving-yaml/ocaml-ppx-deriving-yaml-0.2.1-1.fc39.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jjames Description: This ppx is based on ppx_yojson [1] and ppx_deriving_yojson [2] because of the many similarities between JSON and yaml. In particular many of the ways OCaml values are encoded to yaml types are the same as those implemented by the Yojson ppx. References: [1] https://github.com/NathanReb/ppx_yojson [2] https://github.com/ocaml-ppx/ppx_deriving_yojson -- 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=2217730 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202217730%23c0 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2217730] Review Request: ocaml-ppx-deriving-yaml - Derive conversion functions between OCaml types and YAML
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217730 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Depends On||2217729 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217729 [Bug 2217729] Review Request: ocaml-yaml - Parse and generate YAML 1.1/1.2 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=2217730 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2217729] New: Review Request: ocaml-yaml - Parse and generate YAML 1.1/1.2 files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217729 Bug ID: 2217729 Summary: Review Request: ocaml-yaml - Parse and generate YAML 1.1/1.2 files Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: loganje...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/ocaml-yaml/ocaml-yaml.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/ocaml-yaml/ocaml-yaml-3.1.0-1.fc39.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jjames Description: This is an OCaml library to parse and generate the YAML file format. It is intended to be interoperable with the Ezjsonm (https://github.com/mirage/ezjsonm) JSON handling library, if the simple common subset of Yaml is used. Anchors and other advanced Yaml features are not implemented in the JSON compatibility layer. -- 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=2217729 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202217729%23c0 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2215187] Review Request: gensio - General Stream I/O
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2215187 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2023-0072e97242 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-0072e97242 -- 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=2215187 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202215187%23c11 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2215187] Review Request: gensio - General Stream I/O
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2215187 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-3617af4ef0 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-3617af4ef0 -- 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=2215187 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202215187%23c9 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2215187] Review Request: gensio - General Stream I/O
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2215187 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gensio -- 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=2215187 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202215187%23c8 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2213078] Review Request: goldendict-ng - The Next Generation GoldenDict
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2213078
Felix Kaechele changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(topazus@outlook.c
||om)
--- Comment #7 from Felix Kaechele ---
(In reply to Felix Wang from comment #5)
> Thanks for your clear and detailed comments on the package review.
>
> > - Package conflicts with files from goldendict but doesn't specify a
> > Conflicts tag. See
> > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Conflicts/ for
> > details on the process.
>
> Done.
If the conflict could be avoided (i.e. by renaming the binary and data
directories) that would be preferred. This would support a scenario in which a
user may decide to install both variants of the package.
That would fulfill the "As a general rule, Fedora packages must NOT contain any
usage of the Conflicts: field." part of the packaging guidelines.
> > issues about license and bundled of JavaScript libraries
>
> Many thanks for the extensive clarification of JavaScript libraries
> licensing and their bundled things.
> Accutually, I am not familiar with these things. I've updated the spec file
> accordingly, hope they are correct now.
Technically, JS libraries need to be unbundled like any other bundled library.
In this instance it doesn't make a lot of sense as the build process then
bundles the JS files into the binary. So any change to the distribution version
of the JS files would have to trigger a reboot of this package regardless. So I
believe bundling in this instance is an acceptable solution.
> > - Package uses an ExclusiveArch tag for reasons related to qt6-webengine,
> > this is permissible from my perspective but the approach mentioned in the
> > referenced specfile could be used (BuildRequires qt6-srpm-macros and use
> > %qt6_qtwebengine_arches macro). Your call.
>
> %qt6_qtwebengine_arches macro includes the %{ix86} architecure, which is not
> supported by qt6-webengine, so I use `ExclusiveArch: aarch64 x86_64` to
> explicitly set the supported architectures.
>
> Ref: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/qt6/blob/rawhide/f/macros.qt6-srpm#_8
OK, that makes sense then.
> >- CMake uses pkg-config to identify the library devel packages to install.
> >The spec file should therefor express library >dependencies in that way:
> >https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/PkgConfigBuildRequires/
> > This has the added benefit that the package will build even when the user
> > has ffmpeg installed through a third-party >repository, which may conflict
> > with ffmpeg-free-devel.
>
> I converted most of the dependencies to the corresponding pkgconfig() or
> cmake() format, but I do not find a way to how to use pkgconfig() to express
> the dependency of ffmpeg-free-devel.
In the upstream sources you can find the ffmpeg headers pulled in inside the
file src/ffmpegaudio.cc:
#include
#include
#include
#include "libswresample/swresample.h"
As such you'd be looking at:
pkgconfig(libavcodec)
pkgconfig(libavformat)
pkgconfig(libavutil)
pkgconfig(libswresample)
These dependencies are provided by the respective lib*-free-devel packages but
alternatively also by ffmpeg-devel from RPMFusion. By using the pkgconfig
BuildRequires a user can build the package locally using either Fedora or
RPMFusion FFmpeg without creating a conflict.
The pkgconfig BuildRequires for xz-devel is pkgconfig(liblzma) as can be seen
by running dnf repoquery --provides xz-devel
> > - rpmlint warning: unused-direct-shlib-dependency could be fixed by
> > patching the CMake files to pass the as-needed flag for the fmt library,
> > see https://stackoverflow.com/a/65819681 (this patch should be suggested
> > upstream)
>
> The --as-needed flag already has been added to LDFLAGS by default. I do not
> have any idea about how to fix this warning.
>
> Ref: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/RemoveExcessiveLinking
This one is certainly a bit weird. The source references fmt but the symbol
doesn't show up in the binary. I'll need to investigate this a bit further.
> (In reply to shenlebantongying from comment #4)
> > > - qtsingleapplication
> > >- No justification given in spec file
> >
> > The upstream made incompatible changes to the lib; thus have to use the
> > bundled one :)
>
> Here is the comment from the maintainer of the upstream project, so I set
> the qtsingleapplication dependency as bundled.
Understood. I think bundling is acceptable in this case.
Summarizing the To Dos:
- Please resolve the Conflicts by renaming the binaries
- Introduce the pkgconfig requires for the remaining libraries.
- I will investigate the linking warning a bit further. I don't think it's a
real issue but I'd like to understand better why this is happening. May be an
issue with the ordering of the link
[Bug 2158000] Review Request: light - Control backlight controllers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2158000 --- Comment #24 from Jakub Kadlčík --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/frostyx/light/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01322760-light/light.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/frostyx/light/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01322760-light/light-1.2.2-2.fc33.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2158000 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202158000%23c24 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2158000] Review Request: light - Control backlight controllers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2158000 --- Comment #25 from Fedora Review Service --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6116450 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2158000-light/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06116450-light/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2158000 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202158000%23c25 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2158000] Review Request: light - Control backlight controllers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2158000 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2158000 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2158000] Review Request: light - Control backlight controllers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2158000 --- Comment #23 from Jakub Kadlčík --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/frostyx/light/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01322760-light/light.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/frostyx/light/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01322760-light/light-1.2.2-2.fc33.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2158000 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202158000%23c23 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2158000] Review Request: light - Control backlight controllers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2158000 --- Comment #22 from Jakub Kadlčík --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/frostyx/light/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01322760-light/light.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/frostyx/light/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01322760-light/light-1.2.2-2.fc33.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2158000 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202158000%23c22 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2215710] Review Request: python-diskcache - Python disk-backed cache
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2215710 Jonny Heggheim changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Jonny Heggheim --- Package approved! Please follow https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Retirement_Process/#claiming for next steps. -- 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=2215710 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202215710%23c4 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2214364] Review Request: rust-rustls-webpki - Web PKI X.509 Certificate Verification
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2214364 --- Comment #4 from Fabio Valentini --- I've filed upstream issue about whether including BSD-3-Clause in the license metadata is correct: https://github.com/rustls/webpki/issues/101 -- 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=2214364 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202214364%23c4 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2214364] Review Request: rust-rustls-webpki - Web PKI X.509 Certificate Verification
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2214364 --- Comment #3 from Fabio Valentini --- (In reply to blinxen from comment #2) > Taking this review > > General comments: > > - Package was generated with rust2rpm and changes were made > - License field was specified by the packager because upstream did not > specify it in the crate metadata. The main branch has this fixed but it now > includes both ISC and BSD-3-Clause. My understanding is that BSD-3-Clause is > only required for tests. The code itself is licensed under ISC. Meh, I guess I'll file an issue with upstream to clarify the license. Including BSD-3-Clause in the crate metadata if it only applies to test data that's not linked into binaries that seems off to me. > - The tests directory along with the third-party directory are excluded from > the binary RPM. Not specifying the BSD-3-Clause license should be OK here. > > Questions: > > - The crate depends on `ring` which is architecture dependent. Why is the > package "noarch"? Does the "supported_arches" macro have some kind of magic > powers? No, the idea is that the package is available on all architectures to prevent broken dependencies, but it will not compile on unsupported architectures. This is why %cargo_build and %cargo_test are wrapped in "%if supported_arches" conditions. > - Both build and check sections are dependent on the arch but the install > section is not. Why? Does "cargo install" not also build the crate if it was > not built before? The "%cargo_install" macro does not run "cargo install" for library crates, but only "cargo package" to copy library sources. So no, it does not compile. Otherwise the scratch build would also have failed. > - You drop all integration tests because of missing files in the published > crate. Some tests have their files published with the crate, so technically > they could be run. Did you miss this or did I see wrong? I didn't miss it. But the way the tests are written, they attempt to include files at compile time (i.e. `include_bytes!()` macro). This breaks compiling the tests/integration.rs file even if I tried to skip tests with missing data with "%cargo_test -- -- --skip foo" ... I don't think it's worth my time to manually go through this file for every update to patch out tests that don't compile. -- 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=2214364 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202214364%23c3 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2214364] Review Request: rust-rustls-webpki - Web PKI X.509 Certificate Verification
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2214364
blinxen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|h-k...@hotmail.com
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
Flags||fedora-review?
CC||h-k...@hotmail.com
--- Comment #2 from blinxen ---
Taking this review
General comments:
- Package was generated with rust2rpm and changes were made
- License field was specified by the packager because upstream did not specify
it in the crate metadata. The main branch has this fixed but it now includes
both ISC and BSD-3-Clause. My understanding is that BSD-3-Clause is only
required for tests. The code itself is licensed under ISC.
- The tests directory along with the third-party directory are excluded from
the binary RPM. Not specifying the BSD-3-Clause license should be OK here.
Questions:
- The crate depends on `ring` which is architecture dependent. Why is the
package "noarch"? Does the "supported_arches" macro have some kind of magic
powers?
- Both build and check sections are dependent on the arch but the install
section is not. Why? Does "cargo install" not also build the crate if it was
not built before?
- You drop all integration tests because of missing files in the published
crate. Some tests have their files published with the crate, so technically
they could be run. Did you miss this or did I see wrong?
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
Note: Using prebuilt packages
[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". 85 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-
rpmbuild/results/rust-rustls-webpki/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.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[!]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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]: Large documentation must go in a
[Bug 2217167] Review Request: rust-whoami - Retrieve the current user and environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217167 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-whoami -- 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=2217167 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202217167%23c9 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2217167] Review Request: rust-whoami - Retrieve the current user and environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217167 Fabio Valentini changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED|POST --- Comment #8 from Fabio Valentini --- Package was generated with rust2rpm, simplifying the review. - package builds and installs without errors on rawhide - test suite is run and all unit tests pass - latest version of the crate is packaged - license matches upstream specification and is acceptable for Fedora - license files are included with %license in %files - package complies with Rust Packaging Guidelines Package APPROVED. === Recommended post-import rust-sig tasks: - add @rust-sig with "commit" access as package co-maintainer - set bugzilla assignee overrides to @rust-sig (optional) - set up package on release-monitoring.org: project: $crate homepage: https://crates.io/crates/$crate backend: crates.io version scheme: semantic version filter: alpha;beta;rc;pre distro: Fedora Package: rust-$crate - track package in koschei for all built branches -- 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=2217167 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202217167%23c8 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2097813] Review Request: perl-MooseX-Extended - Extend Moose with safe defaults and useful features
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2097813
--- Comment #7 from Ralf Corsepius ---
(In reply to Michal Josef Spacek from comment #6)
> Sorry coreutils is needed for %{_fixperms}
Correct. Misinterpretations such as yours are the result of RHAT's ban of file
deps. Incidents like this demonstrate this ban's harmfulness.
Updated package:
Spec URL: https://corsepiu.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-MooseX-Extended.spec
SRPM URL:
https://corsepiu.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-MooseX-Extended-0.35-1.fc39.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=2097813
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202097813%23c7
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 2217077] Review Request: ocaml-uuseg - Unicode text segmentation for OCaml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217077 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Richard W.M. Jones --- *** Package is APPROVED for Fedora *** -- 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=2217077 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202217077%23c2 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2217077] Review Request: ocaml-uuseg - Unicode text segmentation for OCaml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217077
--- Comment #1 from Richard W.M. Jones ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
Not applicable for OCaml packages.
[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", "ISC License", "*No copyright* ISC
License", "*No copyright* Public domain". 11 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/tmp/2217077-ocaml-
uuseg/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
It uses a weird build system, but is a small enough package that this
doesn't matter.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
There is a small amount of documentation in the main package.
[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
Ocaml:
[x]: This should never happen
= 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.
Yes, latest version is 15.0.0.
[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.
[?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supp
[Bug 2217076] Review Request: ocaml-uucp - Unicode character properties for OCaml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217076 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Richard W.M. Jones --- *** Package is APPROVED for Fedora *** -- 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=2217076 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202217076%23c2 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2217076] Review Request: ocaml-uucp - Unicode character properties for OCaml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217076
--- Comment #1 from Richard W.M. Jones ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[-]: Package contains no static executables.
Not applicable for OCaml packages.
[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", "ISC License", "*No copyright* ISC
License", "ISC License [generated file]", "*No copyright* Public
domain". 14 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /var/tmp/2217076-ocaml-uucp/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
Well no, but it's a very simple package and uses its own weird
build system so it doesn't matter.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package 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
Ocaml:
[x]: This should never happen
= 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.
Latest upstream is 15.0.0, which is the version being 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.
[?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms
[Bug 2217167] Review Request: rust-whoami - Retrieve the current user and environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217167 --- Comment #7 from Fabio Valentini --- (In reply to Mads Kiilerich from comment #6) > (In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #5) > > Thaks for clarifying. > > > It looks like you've opted for option 3 (i.e. remove the "+web-devel" > > subpackage from the spec file, but not patch Cargo.toml. This is more or > > less equivalent to using the "unwanted-features" setting and *might or might > > not do what you expect depending on the circumstances*. I recommend patching > > out the "web" feature from Cargo.toml with "rust2rpm -p". > > No - I patch Cargo.toml too. I am editing whoami-fix-metadata-auto.diff . I > guess that can be confusing if expecting that one to be owned by rust2rpm. > But having multiple levels of patches is also confusing. That is indeed the *most* confusing option I've encountered yet ... Especially because the filename contains "auto" and the comment in the spec file says "Automatically generated" ... The "rust2rpm -p" workflow is intended to address this exact issue (even if it results in two levels of patch, one automatically generated that shouldn't be touched, one for manual changes). > > Thanks, the package looks good otherwise, I'll do the full review once the > > issue of the missing license texts is resolved. > > I fixed the license file issue upstream in 1.4.1, so it should be ready for > review: > > Spec URL: https://kiilerix.fedorapeople.org/rust-whoami.spec > SRPM URL: > https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/work/tasks/6265/102616265/rust-whoami-1.4. > 1-1.fc39.src.rpm Thanks, I'll review after I had lunch. :) -- 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=2217167 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202217167%23c7 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2217538] Review Request: golang-github-zclconf-cty-debug - Debugging and inspection utilities for cty
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217538 Mikel Olasagasti Uranga changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Status|NEW |CLOSED Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Last Closed||2023-06-26 15:39:41 -- 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=2217538 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2217167] Review Request: rust-whoami - Retrieve the current user and environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217167 --- Comment #6 from Mads Kiilerich --- (In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #5) Thaks for clarifying. > It looks like you've opted for option 3 (i.e. remove the "+web-devel" > subpackage from the spec file, but not patch Cargo.toml. This is more or > less equivalent to using the "unwanted-features" setting and *might or might > not do what you expect depending on the circumstances*. I recommend patching > out the "web" feature from Cargo.toml with "rust2rpm -p". No - I patch Cargo.toml too. I am editing whoami-fix-metadata-auto.diff . I guess that can be confusing if expecting that one to be owned by rust2rpm. But having multiple levels of patches is also confusing. > Thanks, the package looks good otherwise, I'll do the full review once the > issue of the missing license texts is resolved. I fixed the license file issue upstream in 1.4.1, so it should be ready for review: Spec URL: https://kiilerix.fedorapeople.org/rust-whoami.spec SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/work/tasks/6265/102616265/rust-whoami-1.4.1-1.fc39.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=2217167 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202217167%23c6 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2217538] New: Review Request: golang-github-zclconf-cty-debug - Debugging and inspection utilities for cty
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217538 Bug ID: 2217538 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-zclconf-cty-debug - Debugging and inspection utilities for cty Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mi...@olasagasti.info QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://mikel.olasagasti.info/tmp/fedora/golang-github-zclconf-cty-debug.spec SRPM URL: https://mikel.olasagasti.info/tmp/fedora/golang-github-zclconf-cty-debug-0-0.1.20230626gitb22d67c.fc38.src.rpm Description: Debugging and inspection utilities for cty. Fedora Account System Username: mikelo2 -- 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=2217538 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202217538%23c0 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2217075] Review Request: ocaml-uunf - Unicode text normalization for OCaml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217075 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(loganjerry@gmail. ||com) --- Comment #2 from Richard W.M. Jones --- A few license and man page questions in 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=2217075 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202217075%23c2 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2217075] Review Request: ocaml-uunf - Unicode text normalization for OCaml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217075
--- Comment #1 from Richard W.M. Jones ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
Not applicable to OCaml packages.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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", "ISC License", "*No copyright* ISC
License", "ISC License [generated file]", "*No copyright* Public
domain". 14 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /var/tmp/2217075-ocaml-uunf/licensecheck.txt
I'm not sure if the License field should include the license of the
test-only file (probably some Unicode consortium thing), or else be
omitted.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
Uses a weird build system, but doesn't seem problematic.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
Maybe - see above.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[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 2 files.
No significant docs.
[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
Ocaml:
[x]: This should never happen
= 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.
Yes, 15.0.0 is the latest version upstream.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or ar
[Bug 2217183] Review Request: ocaml-ppx-stable-witness - Derive a witness that a type is intended to be stable
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217183 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Richard W.M. Jones --- *** Package APPROVED for Fedora *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217183 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202217183%23c2 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2217183] Review Request: ocaml-ppx-stable-witness - Derive a witness that a type is intended to be stable
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217183
--- Comment #1 from Richard W.M. Jones ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[-]: Package contains no static executables.
This is not applicable to OCaml packages.
[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", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT
License". 12 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /var/tmp/2217183-ocaml-ppx-stable-
witness/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
Sort of. Uses %dune_build.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
Literally no docs, even upstream.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Ocaml:
[x]: This should never happen
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
Yes, there's only one version upstream.
[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.
[?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[?]: Packages should try
[Bug 2217491] Review Request: python-zombie-imp - A copy of the `imp` module that was removed in Python 3.12
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217491
--- Comment #2 from Karolina Surma ---
Except for the tests, the rest looks good. Please post the updated specfile
with running %check.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= FOUND ISSUES =
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
Note: no tests run.
= 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.
[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: No rpmlint messages.
[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:
[-]: 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 separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version 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.
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[Bug 2196603] Review Request: zydis - Fast and lightweight x86/x86-64 disassembler and code generation library.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2196603
--- Comment #4 from Benson Muite ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 8366080 bytes in 557 files.
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/#_documentation
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT
License", "*No copyright* [generated file]". 500 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/zydis/2196603-zydis/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/cmake/zydis
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/cmake/zydis
[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in zydis-
devel , zydis-tools
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]:
[Bug 2119984] Review Request: c-icap-modules - Services for the c-icap server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2119984 Simone Caronni changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|fr...@crawford.emu.id.au --- Comment #6 from Simone Caronni --- We're working on bringing the whole C-ICAP + Squid clamav in Fedora/EPEL, so I think it's fine with him. 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=2119984 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202119984%23c6 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2217080] Review Request: ocaml-ppx-globalize - Generate functions to copy local values to the global heap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217080 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Richard W.M. Jones --- *** Packaged APPROVED for Fedora *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217080 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202217080%23c3 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2217080] Review Request: ocaml-ppx-globalize - Generate functions to copy local values to the global heap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217080 --- Comment #2 from Richard W.M. Jones --- I feel this package might be really useful to me, if only I understood what it actually does. There is no documentation at all upstream! -- 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=2217080 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202217080%23c2 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2217080] Review Request: ocaml-ppx-globalize - Generate functions to copy local values to the global heap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217080
--- Comment #1 from Richard W.M. Jones ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
(Although not very relevant for OCaml packages)
[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", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT
License". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /var/tmp/2217080-ocaml-ppx-globalize/licensecheck.txt
Seems to be SPDX "MIT", and that matches the code.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
Sort of. It actually uses the %dune_build macro which
is correct for OCaml packages using dune.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Ocaml:
[x]: This should never happen
= 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.
Yes the latest (and in fact only) version is 0.16.0
[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.
[?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all suppo
[Bug 2217074] Review Request: ocaml-uucd - Unicode character database decoder for OCaml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217074 --- Comment #5 from Fabio Valentini --- Don't ask me, as the Unicode Consortium :) But since upstream doesn't say how this code came to be ... I'd say it's safe to assume that the project's license (ISC) applies to everything. -- 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=2217074 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202217074%23c5 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2182151] Review Request: ktls-utils - TLS Handshake agent for kernel sockets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2182151 --- Comment #62 from Chuck Lever --- (In reply to Daiki Ueno from comment #61) > On a slightly different note, if the netlink interface is not fixed, it > might make things simpler to use the gnutls_handshake* API > (gnutls_handshake_write and gnutls_handshake_set_read_function) and drive > the handshake state machine directly. That way the record protocol > (regardless of TLS or DTLS) could be sorely handled in the kernel. I think there is some flexibility in the netlink API, and we are interested in supporting DTLS eventually (as well as handling QUICv1 handshakes). The first two consumers (RPC and NVMe/TCP) needed TLSv1.3 so that is what we started with. We have a mailing list: You are very welcome to post patches or suggestions there. -- 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=2182151 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202182151%23c62 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2217074] Review Request: ocaml-uucd - Unicode character database decoder for OCaml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217074 --- Comment #4 from Richard W.M. Jones --- This is the guts of the library: https://github.com/dbuenzli/uucd/blob/master/src/uucd.ml I'm not sure that this kind of data dump is copyrightable at all, at least not in the US. Upstream is silent on how the data was generated. -- 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=2217074 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202217074%23c4 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2217491] Review Request: python-zombie-imp - A copy of the `imp` module that was removed in Python 3.12
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217491 --- Comment #1 from Karolina Surma --- fedora-review is broken in Rawhide apparently due to dnf5 issue: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/dnf5/issues/635 I'll inspect the built Rawhide RPMs and use the results from F38 review as a partial workaround. Specfile: It looks pretty standard, just one nitpick: Consider adding to the package description a tad more serious explanation why it's actually packaged to Fedora - the current one raises more questions than answers. RPM: The tests are not running during the build: build.log contains these lines: + /usr/bin/python3 -m tox --current-env -q --recreate -e py311 py311: OK (0.00 seconds) congratulations :) (0.03 seconds) -- 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=2217491 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202217491%23c1 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2182151] Review Request: ktls-utils - TLS Handshake agent for kernel sockets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2182151 --- Comment #61 from Daiki Ueno --- On a slightly different note, if the netlink interface is not fixed, it might make things simpler to use the gnutls_handshake* API (gnutls_handshake_write and gnutls_handshake_set_read_function) and drive the handshake state machine directly. That way the record protocol (regardless of TLS or DTLS) could be sorely handled in the kernel. -- 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=2182151 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202182151%23c61 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2119494] Review Request: aubit4gl - Informix-4GL compatible compiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2119494 --- Comment #106 from Stansoft --- Is this package approved? Do I just need a sponsor to get it added into the Fedora repo? -- 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=2119494 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202119494%23c106 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2217074] Review Request: ocaml-uucd - Unicode character database decoder for OCaml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217074 Fabio Valentini changed: What|Removed |Added CC||decatho...@gmail.com --- Comment #3 from Fabio Valentini --- Note: Usually any source code derived from Unicode data is covered by the Unicode License Agreement (https://spdx.org/licenses/Unicode-DFS-2016.html). I'm not sure if the data included in this package is "affected" by this, but it would be good to check. -- 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=2217074 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202217074%23c3 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2217074] Review Request: ocaml-uucd - Unicode character database decoder for OCaml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217074 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Richard W.M. Jones --- *** This package is approved for Fedora *** -- 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=2217074 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202217074%23c2 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2217074] Review Request: ocaml-uucd - Unicode character database decoder for OCaml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217074
--- Comment #1 from Richard W.M. Jones ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[-]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[-]: Package contains no static executables.
Question not really applicable to OCaml packages.
[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", "ISC License", "*No copyright* ISC
License", "*No copyright* Public domain". 9 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/tmp/2217074-ocaml-
uucd/licensecheck.txt
License looks correct, and I believe "ISC" is a correct SPDX name too:
https://spdx.org/licenses/ISC
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
Yes since -devel subpackage depends on main package.
[-]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
Using a weird build system, so probably not, but it's a tiny OCaml
package so this doesn't matter in practice.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
We're not building significant docs.
[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
Ocaml:
[x]: This should never happen
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
Yes there is already a LICENSE.md file & it is packaged.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
Latest is 15.0.0 at time of writing.
[x]: Package does not include li
[Bug 2214355] Review Request: rust-cmac - Generic implementation of Cipher-based Message Authentication Code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2214355 Fabio Valentini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2023-06-26 13:48:48 --- Comment #4 from Fabio Valentini --- Imported and built: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-b6e5cbc061 -- 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=2214355 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202214355%23c4 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2214386] Review Request: rust-aes-siv - AES-SIV Misuse-Resistant Authenticated Encryption Cipher
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2214386 Bug 2214386 depends on bug 2214355, which changed state. Bug 2214355 Summary: Review Request: rust-cmac - Generic implementation of Cipher-based Message Authentication Code https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2214355 What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- 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=2214386 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2217167] Review Request: rust-whoami - Retrieve the current user and environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217167 Fabio Valentini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags||fedora-review? Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|decatho...@gmail.com --- Comment #5 from Fabio Valentini --- (In reply to Mads Kiilerich from comment #4) > (In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #2) > > This is correct, however you could likely drop the now-empty "web" feature > > as well. > > You mean by manually making additional changes to the files generated by > rust2rpm? Is there a good workflow to maintain such packages when we not > just can run rust2rpm again in the future? You can use "rust2rpm -p" to automate part of that workflow, or use a rust2rpm.conf configuration file to affect certain aspects of spec file generation that *don't* need manual interventions. In this case, you could set "unwanted-features = web", which would have the same effect. However, I don't recommend using this setting in general, since it can have unintended consequences if not used right (but it would work in this case, since the "web" feature has no dependencies and is not depended on by any other features). It looks like you've opted for option 3 (i.e. remove the "+web-devel" subpackage from the spec file, but not patch Cargo.toml. This is more or less equivalent to using the "unwanted-features" setting and *might or might not do what you expect depending on the circumstances*. I recommend patching out the "web" feature from Cargo.toml with "rust2rpm -p". > (Also, it seems like it could be a rust2rpm feature request to remove such > empty features completely.) No can do. Features with no dependencies are valid. So removing any features that *end up empty after stripping unwanted dependencies* need to be handled on a case by case basis, and can't just be removed automatically, since that would be wrong in ~50% of cases. > Ok, I guess the license files is a blocker. Trying to resolve that upstream. Yes, for now. Thank you for approaching upstream. > Meanwhile, an update with web feature removed: > > Spec URL: https://kiilerix.fedorapeople.org/rust-whoami.spec > SRPM URL: > https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/work/tasks/535/102560535/rust-whoami-1.4. > 0-2.fc39.src.rpm Thanks, the package looks good otherwise, I'll do the full review once the issue of the missing license texts is resolved. -- 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=2217167 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202217167%23c5 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2119984] Review Request: c-icap-modules - Services for the c-icap server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2119984 Benson Muite changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |needinfo?(fr...@crawford.em |needinfo?(benson_muite@emai |u.id.au) |lplus.org) | Assignee|benson_mu...@emailplus.org |nob...@fedoraproject.org --- Comment #5 from Benson Muite --- Thanks for the reminder. If @fr...@crawford.emu.id.au can do it that would be great. Otherwise can come back to it in a few days. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2119984 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202119984%23c5 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2214355] Review Request: rust-cmac - Generic implementation of Cipher-based Message Authentication Code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2214355 --- Comment #3 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-cmac -- 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=2214355 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202214355%23c3 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2214355] Review Request: rust-cmac - Generic implementation of Cipher-based Message Authentication Code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2214355 --- Comment #2 from Fabio Valentini --- Thanks for the review! As far as I can tell, the two missing dependencies are preventing us from running tests in at least a handful of packages, so I'll put packaging them at the bottom of my TODO list. :) -- 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=2214355 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202214355%23c2 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2208531] Review Request: glsl-language-server - Language server implementation for GLSL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2208531
Benson Muite changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
--- Comment #7 from Benson Muite ---
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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* The Unlicense GNU
General Public License, Version 3", "MIT License". 16 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/glsl-language-
server/2208531-glsl-language-server/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.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on
[Bug 2216484] Review Request: sexpp - S-expressions parser and generator tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2216484 --- Comment #5 from Remi Collet --- Project was renamed from sexp to sexpp, solving the name conflict, so ready for review https://git.remirepo.net/cgit/rpms/lib/sexp.git/commit/?id=ea373ce9bb624a069ba173d5cd94008ea54cf8e6 Spec URL: https://git.remirepo.net/cgit/rpms/lib/sexp.git/plain/sexpp.spec?id=ea373ce9bb624a069ba173d5cd94008ea54cf8e6 SRPM URL: https://rpms.remirepo.net/SRPMS/sexpp-0.8.7-1.remi.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=2216484 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202216484%23c5 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2216484] Review Request: sexpp - S-expressions parser and generator tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2216484 Remi Collet changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: sexp - |Review Request: sexpp - |S-expressions parser and|S-expressions parser and |generator tools |generator tools -- 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=2216484 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2217097] Review Request: rocm_smi_lib - ROCm System Management Interface Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217097 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rjo...@redhat.com --- Comment #11 from Richard W.M. Jones --- (In reply to Tom Rix from comment #5) > fedora-review is failing for me after this morning update of rawhide with. > Unknown argument "-C" for command "repoquery". > I'll assume this is resolved for the *.2, or can you paste the review with > *.2 ? FYI: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217496 -- 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=2217097 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202217097%23c11 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2215187] Review Request: gensio - General Stream I/O
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2215187 Felix Wang changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Felix Wang --- The package looks good to me now. 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=2215187 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202215187%23c7 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2213078] Review Request: goldendict-ng - The Next Generation GoldenDict
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2213078 --- Comment #6 from Felix Wang --- SPEC URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/rpms/goldendict-ng.spec SRPM URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/rpms/goldendict-ng-23.06.01-1.fc39.src.rpm koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=102609492 -- 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=2213078 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202213078%23c6 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2213078] Review Request: goldendict-ng - The Next Generation GoldenDict
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2213078
Felix Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(topazus@outlook.c |
|om) |
--- Comment #5 from Felix Wang ---
Thanks for your clear and detailed comments on the package review.
> - Package conflicts with files from goldendict but doesn't specify a
> Conflicts tag. See
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Conflicts/ for
> details on the process.
Done.
> issues about license and bundled of JavaScript libraries
Many thanks for the extensive clarification of JavaScript libraries licensing
and their bundled things.
Accutually, I am not familiar with these things. I've updated the spec file
accordingly, hope they are correct now.
> - Package uses an ExclusiveArch tag for reasons related to qt6-webengine,
> this is permissible from my perspective but the approach mentioned in the
> referenced specfile could be used (BuildRequires qt6-srpm-macros and use
> %qt6_qtwebengine_arches macro). Your call.
%qt6_qtwebengine_arches macro includes the %{ix86} architecure, which is not
supported by qt6-webengine, so I use `ExclusiveArch: aarch64 x86_64` to
explicitly set the supported architectures.
Ref: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/qt6/blob/rawhide/f/macros.qt6-srpm#_8
>- CMake uses pkg-config to identify the library devel packages to install. The
>spec file should therefor express library >dependencies in that way:
>https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/PkgConfigBuildRequires/
> This has the added benefit that the package will build even when the user
> has ffmpeg installed through a third-party >repository, which may conflict
> with ffmpeg-free-devel.
I converted most of the dependencies to the corresponding pkgconfig() or
cmake() format, but I do not find a way to how to use pkgconfig() to express
the dependency of ffmpeg-free-devel.
> - rpmlint warning: unused-direct-shlib-dependency could be fixed by patching
> the CMake files to pass the as-needed flag for the fmt library, see
> https://stackoverflow.com/a/65819681 (this patch should be suggested upstream)
The --as-needed flag already has been added to LDFLAGS by default. I do not
have any idea about how to fix this warning.
Ref: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/RemoveExcessiveLinking
(In reply to shenlebantongying from comment #4)
> > - qtsingleapplication
> >- No justification given in spec file
>
> The upstream made incompatible changes to the lib; thus have to use the
> bundled one :)
Here is the comment from the maintainer of the upstream project, so I set the
qtsingleapplication dependency as bundled.
--
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=2213078
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202213078%23c5
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 2217183] Review Request: ocaml-ppx-stable-witness - Derive a witness that a type is intended to be stable
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217183 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- 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=2217183 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2217080] Review Request: ocaml-ppx-globalize - Generate functions to copy local values to the global heap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217080 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- 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=2217080 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2217076] Review Request: ocaml-uucp - Unicode character properties for OCaml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217076 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- 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=2217076 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2217077] Review Request: ocaml-uuseg - Unicode text segmentation for OCaml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217077 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- 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=2217077 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2217075] Review Request: ocaml-uunf - Unicode text normalization for OCaml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217075 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- 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=2217075 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2217074] Review Request: ocaml-uucd - Unicode character database decoder for OCaml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217074 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- 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=2217074 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2217074] Review Request: ocaml-uucd - Unicode character database decoder for OCaml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217074 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rjo...@redhat.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rjo...@redhat.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217074 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2217075] Review Request: ocaml-uunf - Unicode text normalization for OCaml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217075 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rjo...@redhat.com CC||rjo...@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=2217075 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2217080] Review Request: ocaml-ppx-globalize - Generate functions to copy local values to the global heap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217080 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rjo...@redhat.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value CC||rjo...@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=2217080 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2217183] Review Request: ocaml-ppx-stable-witness - Derive a witness that a type is intended to be stable
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217183 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rjo...@redhat.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value CC||rjo...@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=2217183 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2217076] Review Request: ocaml-uucp - Unicode character properties for OCaml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217076 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rjo...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rjo...@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=2217076 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2217077] Review Request: ocaml-uuseg - Unicode text segmentation for OCaml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217077 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rjo...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rjo...@redhat.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217077 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2217491] Review Request: python-zombie-imp - A copy of the `imp` module that was removed in Python 3.12
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217491 Karolina Surma changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ksu...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ksu...@redhat.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217491 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2217491] New: Review Request: python-zombie-imp - A copy of the `imp` module that was removed in Python 3.12
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217491 Bug ID: 2217491 Summary: Review Request: python-zombie-imp - A copy of the `imp` module that was removed in Python 3.12 Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: thrnc...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/thrnciar/python-zombie-imp/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06113998-python-zombie-imp/python-zombie-imp.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/thrnciar/python-zombie-imp/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06113998-python-zombie-imp/python-zombie-imp-0.0.1-1.fc39.src.rpm Description: A particularly mischevious act of necromancy. That is, A copy of the imp module that was removed in Python 3.12. Don't use this, it'll probably trick and bite you. Fedora Account System Username: thrnciar -- 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=2217491 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202217491%23c0 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2156932] Review Request: python-sgp4 - Compute position and velocity of earth-orbiting satellites
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2156932 --- Comment #7 from Benson Muite --- Seems ok. Note that LICENSE appears twice, python3-sgp4-2.21-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm/usr/share/licenses/python3-sgp4/LICENSE python3-sgp4-2.21-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/sgp4-2.21.dist-info/LICENSE Probably %license is not needed in the files section of the spec file. Maybe it is helpful to add bundled(sgp4) to the spec file. Also may be helpful to make apull request to the repository to include the SGP4 license/attribution. -- 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=2156932 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202156932%23c7 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2217257] Review Request: python-nihtest - A testing tool for command line utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217257 --- Comment #10 from Benson Muite --- If you install nihtest yourself locally by using pip install --user from the source directory, the tests will complete correctly. Using a local folder pip install --t my_nihtest_install and then adding this to PYTHONPATH does not work though. -- 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=2217257 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202217257%23c10 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2217257] Review Request: python-nihtest - A testing tool for command line utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217257
--- Comment #9 from Sandro ---
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #6)
> The tests do not run. May want to do something like:
>
> cmake -S .
> make
> make test
>
> or using the macros
> %cmake
> %cmake_build
> %ctest
>
> The CMakeLists file creates a virtual env and then uses that
> to run the test:
> https://github.com/nih-at/nihtest/blob/main/CMakeLists.txt#L29-L30
>
> This does not work in the build system. Is there a good way to
> use nihtest in %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/nihtest ?
It took me a while to understand what you meant and to understand how the tests
actually work. I'm not a CMake expert. Not using it often.
Anyway, I tried locally using the macros and it indeed fails trying to install
dependencies using pip. What I fail to deduct is what dependencies it is trying
to install. If I can determine that, I could probably add these a BRs and
modify the CMakeLists.txt, so it doesn't run pip.
Otherwise, reverting to only running %pyproject_check_import may be the only
option.
(In reply to Remi Collet from comment #7)
> Side note (please ignore it, probably no value)
That's hard... ;)
> I will probably never understand python Guidelines
> I may understand the python3-xxx for a library, as this allows also to have
> some python3.10-xxx and python3.12-xxx (parallel installable)
> But this project is "nihtest", and provides the "nihtest" command and man
> pages which will make parallel installation impossible
> IMHO, for an application, the python namespace doesn't make any sense.
Well, I had similar discussions regarding package names before. It boils down
to what the main purpose of the package is. Is it primarily an application or
commandline tool or is it primarily a library to be used by other packages.
If in doubt or if it really is both, there's an option to add a Provides for
the binary, so it's easier to find. I did that for another Python package:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-fvs/blob/rawhide/f/python-fvs.spec#_37
Since we are still in review, I'd be happy to add that to the spec, so that
'dnf install nihtest' will work by pulling in python3-nihtest.
--
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=2217257
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202217257%23c9
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 2217257] Review Request: python-nihtest - A testing tool for command line utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217257 --- Comment #8 from Remi Collet --- Well, Guidelines are a bit confusing > The rest of the Guidelines apply to packages that ship code that can be > imported with Python’s import statement. > Specifically, that is all packages that install files under > /usr/lib*/python*/. > > Except for the two “Distro-wide guidelines”, these Guidelines do not apply to > simple one-file scripts or utilities, > especially if these are included with software not written in Python. > However, if an application (e.g. CLI tool, > script or GUI app) needs a more complex Python library, the library SHOULD be > packaged as an importable library > under these guidelines. -- 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=2217257 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202217257%23c8 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2217257] Review Request: python-nihtest - A testing tool for command line utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217257 --- Comment #7 from Remi Collet --- Side note (please ignore it, probably no value) I will probably never understand python Guidelines I may understand the python3-xxx for a library, as this allows also to have some python3.10-xxx and python3.12-xxx (parallel installable) But this project is "nihtest", and provides the "nihtest" command and man pages which will make parallel installation impossible IMHO, for an application, the python namespace doesn't make any sense. -- 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=2217257 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202217257%23c7 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2119984] Review Request: c-icap-modules - Services for the c-icap server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2119984 Simone Caronni changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(benson_muite@emai ||lplus.org) --- Comment #4 from Simone Caronni --- Any chance do you have some time for this review? The base c-icap package is built since some time. Otherwise @@fr...@crawford.emu.id.au can take over. Thanks! -- 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=2119984 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202119984%23c4 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2217257] Review Request: python-nihtest - A testing tool for command line utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217257
--- Comment #6 from Benson Muite ---
The tests do not run. May want to do something like:
cmake -S .
make
make test
or using the macros
%cmake
%cmake_build
%ctest
The CMakeLists file creates a virtual env and then uses that
to run the test:
https://github.com/nih-at/nihtest/blob/main/CMakeLists.txt#L29-L30
This does not work in the build system. Is there a good way to
use nihtest in %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/nihtest ?
--
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=2217257
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202217257%23c6
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 2217257] Review Request: python-nihtest - A testing tool for command line utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217257 Benson Muite changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|benson_mu...@emailplus.org Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags||fedora-review? CC||benson_mu...@emailplus.org -- 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=2217257 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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
