[Bug 2246852] Review Request: glinf - Print information about OpenGL or OpenGLES contexts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246852 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2024-f20bb6203a has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-f20bb6203a \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-f20bb6203a See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246852 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202246852%23c13 -- ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2279440] Review Request: python-pytest-lazy-fixtures - Library to use fixtures in @pytest.mark.parametrize
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279440 Ian Wienand changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|brdeo...@redhat.com |bme...@heredoc.io -- 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=2279440 -- ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2256940] Review Request: smplayer - A graphical frontend for mplayer and mpv
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2256940 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Last Closed||2024-05-08 03:31:34 --- Comment #33 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2024-51f649032a (smplayer-23.12.0-4.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2256940 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202256940%23c33 -- ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2246852] Review Request: glinf - Print information about OpenGL or OpenGLES contexts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246852 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2024-4d25182d9d has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-4d25182d9d \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-4d25182d9d See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246852 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202246852%23c12 -- ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2246852] Review Request: glinf - Print information about OpenGL or OpenGLES contexts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246852 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2024-19049db84f has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-19049db84f \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-19049db84f See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246852 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202246852%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 2276561] Review Request: rust-onenote_parser - Parser for Microsoft OneNote® files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2276561 Bug 2276561 depends on bug 2276560, which changed state. Bug 2276560 Summary: Review Request: rust-enum-primitive-derive - Enum_primitive implementation using procedural macros to have a custom derive https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2276560 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=2276561 -- ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2276560] Review Request: rust-enum-primitive-derive - Enum_primitive implementation using procedural macros to have a custom derive
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2276560 Orion Poplawski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Fixed In Version||rust-enum-primitive-derive- ||0.3.0-1.fc41 Status|POST|CLOSED Last Closed||2024-05-08 01:23:05 --- Comment #3 from Orion Poplawski --- Thanks for the review. Checked in and built. -- 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=2276560 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202276560%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 2276560] Review Request: rust-enum-primitive-derive - Enum_primitive implementation using procedural macros to have a custom derive
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2276560 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST --- Comment #2 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-enum-primitive-derive -- 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=2276560 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202276560%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 2276696] Review Request: rust-proc-macro2-diagnostics - Diagnostics for proc-macro2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2276696 Bug 2276696 depends on bug 2268112, which changed state. Bug 2268112 Summary: rust-yansi-1.0.1 is available https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268112 What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2276696 -- ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2277418] Review Request: golang-github-notedit-janus - support websocket transport for Janus
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277418 Renich Bon Ciric changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|ERRATA |RAWHIDE -- 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=2277418 -- ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2277423] Review Request: nextcloud-spreed-signaling - Standalone signaling server which can be used for Nextcloud Talk
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277423 Bug 2277423 depends on bug 2277418, which changed state. Bug 2277418 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-notedit-janus - support websocket transport for Janus https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277418 What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277423 -- ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2277418] Review Request: golang-github-notedit-janus - support websocket transport for Janus
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277418 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2024-05-07 23:26:51 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2024-bc365d12df (golang-github-notedit-janus-0-0.1.20240423gitfdce1b1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277418 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202277418%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 2277418] Review Request: golang-github-notedit-janus - support websocket transport for Janus
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277418 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2024-bc365d12df (golang-github-notedit-janus-0-0.1.20240423gitfdce1b1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-bc365d12df -- 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=2277418 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202277418%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 2277418] Review Request: golang-github-notedit-janus - support websocket transport for Janus
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277418 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST --- Comment #3 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/golang-github-notedit-janus -- 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=2277418 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202277418%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 2215517] Review Request: lumin - Highlight matches in files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2215517 Michel Lind changed: What|Removed |Added Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mic...@michel-slm.name Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mic...@michel-slm.name Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2215517 -- ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2279676] Review Request: erlang-cache_tab - Erlang cache table application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279676
Fedora Review Service changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://github.com/processo
||ne/%{srcname}
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service
---
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7425924
(succeeded)
Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2279676-erlang-cache_tab/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07425924-erlang-cache_tab/fedora-review/review.txt
Found issues:
- A package with this name already exists. Please check
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/erlang-cache_tab
Read more:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names
Please know that there can be false-positives.
---
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=2279676
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202279676%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 2279676] New: Review Request: erlang-cache_tab - Erlang cache table application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279676 Bug ID: 2279676 Summary: Review Request: erlang-cache_tab - Erlang cache table application Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: lemen...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://peter.fedorapeople.org/packages/re-review/erlang-cache_tab.spec SRPM URL: https://peter.fedorapeople.org/packages/re-review/erlang-cache_tab-1.0.30-1.fc40.src.rpm Description: This application is intended to proxy back-end operations for Key-Value insert, lookup and delete and maintain a cache of those Key-Values in-memory, to save back-end operations. Operations are intended to be atomic between back-end and cache tables. The lifetime of the cache object and the max size of the cache can be defined as table parameters to limit the size of the in-memory tables. Fedora Account System Username: peter This is re-review because the package was orphaned for a while. Koji scratch-build for Rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=117394466 -- 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=2279676 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202279676%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 2279006] Review Request: aws-c-compression - C99 implementation of huffman encoding/decoding
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279006 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/aws-c-compression -- 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=2279006 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202279006%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 2279007] Review Request: aws-checksums - Cross-Platform HW accelerated CRC32c and CRC32 implementations.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279007 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/aws-checksums -- 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=2279007 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202279007%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 2279003] Review Request: aws-c-sdkutils - C99 library implementing AWS SDK specific utilities.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279003 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/aws-c-sdkutils -- 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=2279003 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202279003%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 2278626] Review Request: amazon-ec2-utils - Utilities and settings for Amazon EC2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2278626
Dominik Wombacher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(mhay...@redhat.co
||m)
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from Dominik Wombacher ---
@mhay...@redhat.com looks good, just one finding related to licensing that you
should address:
# Everything MIT except doc/ec2-metadata.8 and doc/ebsnvme-id.8 are
CC-BY-SA-4.0
License:MIT AND CC-BY-SA-4.0
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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /etc/udev/rules.d, /usr/sbin,
/usr/lib/udev/rules.d, /usr/share/doc, /etc/udev, /usr/bin,
/usr/lib/udev, /usr/share/man, /usr, /usr/lib, /usr/share/licenses,
/usr/share, /usr/share/man/man8, /etc
[-]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/udev/rules.d, /usr/sbin,
/usr/lib/udev/rules.d, /usr/share/doc, /etc/udev, /usr/bin,
/usr/lib/udev, /usr/share/man, /usr, /usr/lib, /usr/share/licenses,
/usr/share, /usr/share/man/man8, /etc
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[-]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[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 567 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: 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 sign
[Bug 2264277] Review Request: scx_c_schedulers - sched_ext schedulers written in c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2264277 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST --- Comment #28 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/scx_c_schedulers -- 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=2264277 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202264277%23c28 -- ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2277389] Review Request: rust-bisection - Rust implementation of the Python bisect module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277389 --- Comment #12 from Ben Beasley --- (In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #10) > Wow, that's weird ... can you file a bug for that? https://pagure.io/fedora-rust/rust2rpm/issue/273 -- 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=2277389 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202277389%23c12 -- ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2277389] Review Request: rust-bisection - Rust implementation of the Python bisect module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277389 --- Comment #11 from Ben Beasley --- (In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #7) > The project looks pretty dead :( > > Thank you for filing the issue / PR upstream, but I'm not hopeful that it > will do anything. > > If uv / async_http_range_reader really needs this crate, it might be a good > idea to fork it. > > The upstream repo also has an open issue about a correctness bug (integer > overflow in mid-point calculation) which would be good to fix. Does this attempt at replacing the crate with standard-library functionality look correct to you? https://github.com/musicinmybrain/async_http_range_reader/commit/dde1525a6fab737f74ba426a0ab4f4c1b30988af The tests in async_http_range_reader pass with that change, but I don’t have too much confidence in its test coverage, and I would appreciate a second person looking at the documentation. https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/vec/struct.Vec.html#method.partition_point https://docs.rs/bisection/latest/bisection/fn.bisect_left.html https://docs.rs/bisection/latest/bisection/fn.bisect_right.html -- 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=2277389 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202277389%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 2277389] Review Request: rust-bisection - Rust implementation of the Python bisect module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277389 --- Comment #10 from Fabio Valentini --- Wow, that's weird ... can you file a bug for that? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277389 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202277389%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 2277389] Review Request: rust-bisection - Rust implementation of the Python bisect module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277389 --- Comment #9 from Ben Beasley --- (In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #8) > I forgot: The comments for the patch files are double-"# " prefixed. You > need to drop the "# " prefix from lines in rust2rpm.toml. There aren’t any; see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277389#c1. The double "#"’s are coming from rust2rpm itself. -- 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=2277389 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202277389%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 2279634] Review Request: erlang-epgsql - Erlang PostgreSQL client library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279634 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Review Service --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7425821 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2279634-erlang-epgsql/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07425821-erlang-epgsql/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/erlang-epgsql Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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=2279634 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202279634%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 2279634] Review Request: erlang-epgsql - Erlang PostgreSQL client library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279634 --- Comment #3 from Fedora Review Service --- Created attachment 2032022 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2032022&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 7425767 to 7425821 -- 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=2279634 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202279634%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 2279007] Review Request: aws-checksums - Cross-Platform HW accelerated CRC32c and CRC32 implementations.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279007
Major Hayden 🤠 changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Major Hayden 🤠 ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
Note: Sources not installed
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[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]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
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", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0",
"Apache License 2.0". 18 files have unknown license. Detailed output
of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/aws-
checksums/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr, /usr/share, /usr/lib, /usr/include,
/usr/lib64/cmake, /usr/share/licenses, /usr/src/debug, /usr/share/doc,
/usr/lib64, /usr/src
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib, /usr/include,
/usr/lib64/cmake, /usr/share/licenses, /usr, /usr/src/debug,
/usr/share/doc, /usr/src, /usr/lib64, /usr/share
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[X]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: 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 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[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 167 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv,
[Bug 2279634] Review Request: erlang-epgsql - Erlang PostgreSQL client library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279634 Peter Lemenkov changed: What|Removed |Added Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value --- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov --- Spec URL: https://peter.fedorapeople.org/packages/re-review/erlang-epgsql.spec SRPM URL: https://peter.fedorapeople.org/packages/re-review/erlang-epgsql-4.7.1-1.fc40.src.rpm * Switched to SPDX tag. -- 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=2279634 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202279634%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 2279006] Review Request: aws-c-compression - C99 implementation of huffman encoding/decoding
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279006
Major Hayden 🤠 changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Major Hayden 🤠 ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
No issues found. Approved. ✅
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
Note: Sources not installed
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[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]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
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", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0",
"Apache License 2.0". 31 files have unknown license. Detailed output
of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/aws-c-
compression/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share, /usr/lib64/cmake, /usr,
/usr/share/doc, /usr/lib, /usr/lib64, /usr/src, /usr/src/debug,
/usr/include, /usr/share/licenses
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share, /usr/src/debug,
/usr/lib, /usr/lib64/cmake, /usr, /usr/share/doc, /usr/include,
/usr/src, /usr/lib64, /usr/share/licenses
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: 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 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[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 7190 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Packages
[Bug 2279003] Review Request: aws-c-sdkutils - C99 library implementing AWS SDK specific utilities.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279003 --- Comment #7 from Dominik Wombacher --- Thanks for approving Major :) (In reply to Major Hayden 🤠 from comment #5) > @domi...@wombacher.cc I can't seem to get aws-c-sdkutils to compile: > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=117388260 > > Are we missing another dependency? > > The spec file looks okay to me so far. Just for documentation purposes and context if someone looks into the Bug. We had a brief chat about this via Matrix. The error is caused by aws-c-common 0.6.14. The 0.9.17 update is available in rawhide but for F40 it's still in testing stage [1]. So building against F41 will work (as seen above), for F40 we have to wait till the update moves to stable. [1] https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?packages=aws-c-common -- 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=2279003 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202279003%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 2279006] Review Request: aws-c-compression - C99 implementation of huffman encoding/decoding
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279006 Major Hayden 🤠 changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mhay...@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=2279006 -- ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2279007] Review Request: aws-checksums - Cross-Platform HW accelerated CRC32c and CRC32 implementations.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279007 Major Hayden 🤠 changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mhay...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? 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=2279007 -- ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2279003] Review Request: aws-c-sdkutils - C99 library implementing AWS SDK specific utilities.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279003
Major Hayden 🤠 changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
|needinfo?(dominik@wombacher |
|.cc)|
--- Comment #6 from Major Hayden 🤠 ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
No issues noted. Looks good. Approved. ✅
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
Note: Sources not installed
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[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]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
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", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright*
Apache License 2.0". 55 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/aws-c-
sdkutils/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/cmake, /usr/src/debug, /usr/share,
/usr/share/doc, /usr/include, /usr/lib, /usr/share/licenses,
/usr/lib64, /usr/include/aws, /usr, /usr/src
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr, /usr/lib,
/usr/lib64/cmake, /usr/share/licenses, /usr/src/debug, /usr/share,
/usr/share/doc, /usr/lib64, /usr/include/aws, /usr/include, /usr/src
[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.
[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.
[-]: 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 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[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
[Bug 2264277] Review Request: scx_c_schedulers - sched_ext schedulers written in c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2264277 Michel Lind changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|benson_mu...@emailplus.org |mic...@michel-slm.name -- 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=2264277 -- ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2264277] Review Request: scx_c_schedulers - sched_ext schedulers written in c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2264277 Michel Lind changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #27 from Michel Lind --- LGTM, 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=2264277 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202264277%23c27 -- ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2264277] Review Request: scx_c_schedulers - sched_ext schedulers written in c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2264277 Michel Lind changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | |needinfo?(benson_muite@emai | |lplus.org) | |needinfo?(michel@michel-slm | |.name) | -- 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=2264277 -- ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2279634] Review Request: erlang-epgsql - Erlang PostgreSQL client library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279634
Fedora Review Service changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://github.com/%{realna
||me}/%{realname}
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service
---
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7425767
(succeeded)
Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2279634-erlang-epgsql/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07425767-erlang-epgsql/fedora-review/review.txt
Found issues:
- Not a valid SPDX expression 'BSD'. It seems that you are using the old Fedora
license abbreviations. Try `license-fedora2spdx' for converting it to SPDX.
Read more: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1
- A package with this name already exists. Please check
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/erlang-epgsql
Read more:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names
Please know that there can be false-positives.
---
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=2279634
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202279634%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 2277389] Review Request: rust-bisection - Rust implementation of the Python bisect module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277389 --- Comment #8 from Fabio Valentini --- I forgot: The comments for the patch files are double-"# " prefixed. You need to drop the "# " prefix from lines in rust2rpm.toml. -- 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=2277389 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202277389%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 2279634] New: Review Request: erlang-epgsql - Erlang PostgreSQL client library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279634 Bug ID: 2279634 Summary: Review Request: erlang-epgsql - Erlang PostgreSQL client library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: lemen...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://peter.fedorapeople.org/packages/re-review/erlang-epgsql.spec SRPM URL: https://peter.fedorapeople.org/packages/re-review/erlang-epgsql-4.7.1-1.fc40.src.rpm Description: Library that gives possibility to Erlang programs to connect PostgreSQL databases by plain TCP and execute simple SQL statements. Fedora Account System Username: peter This is re-review because the package was orphaned for a while. Koji scratch-build for Rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=117390392 -- 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=2279634 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202279634%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 2277389] Review Request: rust-bisection - Rust implementation of the Python bisect module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277389 Fabio Valentini changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Fabio Valentini --- The project looks pretty dead :( Thank you for filing the issue / PR upstream, but I'm not hopeful that it will do anything. If uv / async_http_range_reader really needs this crate, it might be a good idea to fork it. The upstream repo also has an open issue about a correctness bug (integer overflow in mid-point calculation) which would be good to fix. Still, the package itself is now looking good (with the added LICENSE file being the best we can do for now unless upstream becomes active again). === 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 file is included with %license in %files (included manually from upstream Pull Request) - package complies with Rust Packaging Guidelines Package APPROVED. === Recommended post-import rust-sig tasks: - 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 - add @rust-sig with "commit" access as package co-maintainer (should happen automatically) - set bugzilla assignee overrides to @rust-sig (optional) - track package in koschei for all built branches (should happen automatically once rust-sig is co-maintainer) === If you have time, please review one of my pending packages in return. -- 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=2277389 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202277389%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 2277389] Review Request: rust-bisection - Rust implementation of the Python bisect module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277389 --- Comment #6 from Ben Beasley --- Thanks for looking into it. Following .cargo_vcs_info.json was an excellent idea. -- 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=2277389 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202277389%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 2277389] Review Request: rust-bisection - Rust implementation of the Python bisect module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277389 --- Comment #5 from Fabio Valentini --- So the fixed examples are indeed the only change. Why force-push for that *after* publishing :( I'll continue the review then. Thank you for checking. -- 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=2277389 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202277389%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 2277389] Review Request: rust-bisection - Rust implementation of the Python bisect module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277389 --- Comment #4 from Ben Beasley --- Created attachment 2032011 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2032011&action=edit Crate to git diff Diff from the contents of the published crate bisection-0.1.0.crate to the current contents of the master branch in the upstream git repository, https://github.com/SteadBytes/bisection/commit/14c95621a33842cdc01148d1d9e39ce16d2b9284. -- 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=2277389 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202277389%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 2278709] Review Request: rust-buddy-alloc - Memory allocator for no-std Rust, used for embedded environments
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2278709 Fabio Valentini changed: What|Removed |Added Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value CC||decatho...@gmail.com --- Comment #3 from Fabio Valentini --- This fails to build for me: >File not found: > /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/rust-buddy-alloc-0.5.1-1.fc41.x86_64/usr/share/cargo/registry/buddy-alloc-0.5.1/LICENSE-MIT.txt >File not found: > /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/rust-buddy-alloc-0.5.1-1.fc41.x86_64/usr/share/cargo/registry/buddy-alloc-0.5.1/Readme.md -- 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=2278709 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202278709%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 2277389] Review Request: rust-bisection - Rust implementation of the Python bisect module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277389 Fabio Valentini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|decatho...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? CC||decatho...@gmail.com --- Comment #3 from Fabio Valentini --- I think I can solve the mystery about how something that's not in the git history ended up being published: The commit that was published to crates.io (according to .cargo_vcs_info.json) is e5550fd4a136c60ab41c3be81209dd5539aa392d, which is no longer part of the upstream git repo: https://github.com/SteadBytes/bisection/commit/e5550fd4a136c60ab41c3be81209dd5539aa392d It looks like the commit that's the current git HEAD was force-pushed *after* publishing to crates.io, so the commit that's associated with the 0.1.0 release on crates.io is no longer present in the commit history. While this isn't necessary a cause for skepticism, I would still be good to compare whether there's any meaningful divergence between what's published and what's now at git HEAD. -- 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=2277389 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202277389%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 2277422] Review Request: golang-github-pion-sdp3 - A Go implementation of the SDP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277422 Renich Bon Ciric changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|ERRATA |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=2277422 -- ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2277397] Review Request: rust-http-content-range - HTTP Content Range response header parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277397 Fabio Valentini changed: What|Removed |Added Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|decatho...@gmail.com CC||decatho...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #1 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 - licenses of statically linked dependencies are correctly taken into account - license file is included with %license in %files - package complies with Rust Packaging Guidelines Package APPROVED. === Recommended post-import rust-sig tasks: - 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 - add @rust-sig with "commit" access as package co-maintainer (should happen automatically) - set bugzilla assignee overrides to @rust-sig (optional) - track package in koschei for all built branches (should happen automatically once rust-sig is co-maintainer) === If you have time, it would be great if you could review one of my pending packages in return. -- 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=2277397 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202277397%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 2278420] Review Request: python-jupytext - Save Jupyter notebooks as text documents or scripts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2278420
--- Comment #4 from wojnilowicz ---
Great. Thanks for your fast package review. It may take me a bit longer to do
the same, because this is my first review ever. Those are my first remarks:
1) Did you went through the rpmlint list? Following warnings/errors seem
reasonable.
python3-jupytext.noarch: W: python-leftover-require python-jupyter-filesystem
ppython3-jupyterlab-jupytext.noarch: E: backup-file-in-package
/usr/share/jupyter/labextensions/jupyterlab-jupytext/schemas/jupyterlab-jupytext/package.json.orig
2) Is this already solved?
License file 834.90ed5e1570392532523d.js.LICENSE.txt is not marked as %license
3) python-jupytext-doc is provided and I believe it should be
python3-jupytext-doc.
4) Is this needed in Requires? The project uses pyproject.toml.
BuildRequires: %{py3_dist setuptools}
5) Is this needed in Requires? You don't seem to be calling npm.
BuildRequires: nodejs-npm
6) There seem to be a couple of unowned directories like e.g. /etc/jupyter and
I believe that's not allowed according to
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/UnownedDirectories/
7) I still haven't looked into the package, but aren't those bundled libraries
that require the FPC exception as in
"Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception."? Have you
already got this exception?
# base64-js: MIT
# buffer: MIT
# ieee754: BSD-3-Clause
--
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=2278420
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202278420%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 2279003] Review Request: aws-c-sdkutils - C99 library implementing AWS SDK specific utilities.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279003 Major Hayden 🤠 changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(dominik@wombacher ||.cc) --- Comment #5 from Major Hayden 🤠 --- @domi...@wombacher.cc I can't seem to get aws-c-sdkutils to compile: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=117388260 Are we missing another dependency? The spec file looks okay to me so far. -- 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=2279003 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202279003%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 2279003] Review Request: aws-c-sdkutils - C99 library implementing AWS SDK specific utilities.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279003 Major Hayden 🤠 changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mhay...@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=2279003 -- ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2279108] Review Request: python-pytest-check - A pytest plugin that allows multiple failures per test.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279108
Jerry James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Jerry James ---
Remove the period from the end of the Summary field. See the rpmlint
summary-ended-with-dot warning below.
This package is APPROVED.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "Unknown or
generated". 68 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/jamesjer/2279108-python-pytest-
check/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[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.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 13007 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[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:
[-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
= 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 %pre
[Bug 2278626] Review Request: amazon-ec2-utils - Utilities and settings for Amazon EC2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2278626 Dominik Wombacher changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|domi...@wombacher.cc --- Comment #2 from Dominik Wombacher --- I take this 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=2278626 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202278626%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 2277423] Review Request: nextcloud-spreed-signaling - Standalone signaling server which can be used for Nextcloud Talk
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277423 Bug 2277423 depends on bug 2277422, which changed state. Bug 2277422 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-pion-sdp3 - A Go implementation of the SDP https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277422 What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277423 -- ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2277422] Review Request: golang-github-pion-sdp3 - A Go implementation of the SDP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277422 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2024-05-07 17:35:52 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2024-aca9351352 (golang-github-pion-sdp3-3.0.9-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277422 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202277422%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 2277422] Review Request: golang-github-pion-sdp3 - A Go implementation of the SDP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277422 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2024-aca9351352 (golang-github-pion-sdp3-3.0.9-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-aca9351352 -- 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=2277422 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202277422%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 2277422] Review Request: golang-github-pion-sdp3 - A Go implementation of the SDP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277422 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST --- Comment #3 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/golang-github-pion-sdp3 -- 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=2277422 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202277422%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 2276290] Review Request: rust-jemalloc-sys - Rust FFI bindings to jemalloc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2276290 --- Comment #5 from Fabio Valentini --- Removing a custom allocator is usually very simple - just remove the dependency and the ALLOC static. Here's an example of what the latter looks like: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-fd-find/blob/rawhide/f/0001-remove-references-to-jemalloc.patch -- 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=2276290 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202276290%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 2254926] Review Request: perl-AnyEvent-Connector - Tcp_connect with transparent proxy handling
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2254926 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST --- Comment #6 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-AnyEvent-Connector -- 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=2254926 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202254926%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 2276290] Review Request: rust-jemalloc-sys - Rust FFI bindings to jemalloc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2276290 --- Comment #4 from wojnilowicz --- (In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #3) > Yes, but custom allocators are, by definition, optional. > We already have a handful of packages in Fedora that drop custom allocators > because they are painful to deal with. If I can workaround I would. I'll try to investigate further. In the meantime, could you link a package that deals (drops?) with custom allocators? > > Couldn't we just remove the noarch line and limit valid architectures with > > ExclusiveArch similarly to > > https://pkgs.rpmfusion.org/cgit/nonfree/nvidia-340xx-kmod.git/tree/nvidia- > > 340xx-kmod.spec#n34 > > ? > > No, that would be wrong. > > The correct solution would be to use the "supported-arches" setting in > rust2rpm.toml to specify that the crate should only be built and tested on > certain architectures. Ok. I've updated the spec file to use supported-arches from rust2rpm.toml. -- 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=2276290 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202276290%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 2279108] Review Request: python-pytest-check - A pytest plugin that allows multiple failures per test.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279108 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added CC||loganje...@gmail.com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|loganje...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #5 from Jerry James --- I will take this review. I know you said the packages I have up for review are too complex, which I understand. This is a freebie. -- 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=2279108 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202279108%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 2278199] Review Request: rust-ulid - Universally Unique Lexicographically Sortable Identifier implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2278199 Sandro Mani changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED|POST --- Comment #3 from Sandro Mani --- 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 file is included with %license in %files - package complies with Rust Packaging Guidelines Package APPROVED. -- 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=2278199 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202278199%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 2279514] Review Request: rust-finl_unicode - Library for handling Unicode functionality for finl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279514 Fabio Valentini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|decatho...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #7 from Fabio Valentini --- (In reply to Cristian Le from comment #6) > > If you don't actually need the sqlx-postgres support, I would recommend to > > avoid packaging finl_unicode, stringprep, and sqlx-postgres for now, and to > > remove the unused stringprep dependency from sqlx-mysql, and revisit > > packaging the postgres support when / if the finl_unicode situation is > > cleared up. > > Seems a bit tricky [1]. I think that's also the only database support for > `atuin-server`. Ah, perfect. It depends on the *one* backend that is problematic ... > > "All rights Preserved" > > I guess you meant "All rights reserved" Yes. Typo :) > also meaning that it is non-free? That's what this usually means, yes. > Weren't there other packages mentioned like `unicode-ident` which have the > same license . Is the license incompatible or the lack of license file? To me, this looks like the upstream project has no idea what they're doing, but I might be wrong. Other projects that include code generated from Unicode data (but not unicode data itself!) use Unicode-DFS-2016 license, which is OK for Fedora. So maybe the difference here is that finl_unicode actually bundles the Unicode data itself and not only the code generated from it? But I'm not sure. Either way, the "All rights reserved" notice seems to be wrong. > My current plan is Option2 + Option1 in the meantime + PR17 which at least > patches the crate metadata. Any other steps for that? Probably patching the > license header for the source files themselves, but I'm not sure where and > how for that. I guess I should also write an email for the legal mailing > list for more feedback? Without more clarifications from finl_unicode upstream, I don't think it can be packaged in the current form, even if you include PR +17. I don't think patching the license headers in the source files is necessary, their license is not impacted by the data that is shipped alongside them. But yes, I think posting to the "legal" mailing list for help would be a good idea. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279514 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202279514%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 2279594] Review Request: ptyxis - A container oriented terminal
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279594 --- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service --- Cannot find any valid SRPM URL for this ticket. Common causes are: - You didn't specify `SRPM URL: ...` in the ticket description or any of your comments - The URL schema isn't HTTP or HTTPS - The SRPM package linked in your URL doesn't match the package name specified in the ticket summary --- 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=2279594 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202279594%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 2279594] Review Request: ptyxis - A container oriented terminal
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279594 Nieves changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|medium |low Severity|medium |low -- 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=2279594 -- ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2279594] New: Review Request: ptyxis - A container oriented terminal
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279594 Bug ID: 2279594 Summary: Review Request: ptyxis - A container oriented terminal Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: nmont...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://nmontero.fedorapeople.org/ SRPM URL: https://nmontero.fedorapeople.org/ Description: Ptyxis is a terminal which attempts to simplify what it means to be a terminal in the age of operating systems which are themselves containers. Fedora Account System Username: nmontero -- 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=2279594 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202279594%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 2279514] Review Request: rust-finl_unicode - Library for handling Unicode functionality for finl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279514 --- Comment #6 from Cristian Le --- > If you don't actually need the sqlx-postgres support, I would recommend to > avoid packaging finl_unicode, stringprep, and sqlx-postgres for now, and to > remove the unused stringprep dependency from sqlx-mysql, and revisit > packaging the postgres support when / if the finl_unicode situation is > cleared up. Seems a bit tricky [1]. I think that's also the only database support for `atuin-server`. > "All rights Preserved" I guess you meant "All rights reserved", also meaning that it is non-free? Weren't there other packages mentioned like `unicode-ident` which have the same license . Is the license incompatible or the lack of license file? My current plan is Option2 + Option1 in the meantime + PR17 which at least patches the crate metadata. Any other steps for that? Probably patching the license header for the source files themselves, but I'm not sure where and how for that. I guess I should also write an email for the legal mailing list for more feedback? [1]: https://github.com/atuinsh/atuin/blob/eebfd048797d2faffd0a9c6633580c5e3077d688/Cargo.toml#L51-L53 -- 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=2279514 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202279514%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 2267973] Review Request: python-timeslot - Class for working with time slots that have an arbitrary start and end.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2267973
Jerry James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #10 from Jerry James ---
This package is APPROVED.
The spec file has "%bcond_without check" at the top, but the conditional is
not used anywhere. Perhaps it should be removed? If you do have a reason to
keep it, consider changing to the new syntax: "%bcond check 1".
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "MIT License", "Unknown or generated". 7 files have unknown
license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[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.
[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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[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 1555 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note:
[Bug 2276560] Review Request: rust-enum-primitive-derive - Enum_primitive implementation using procedural macros to have a custom derive
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2276560 Fabio Valentini changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value CC||decatho...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|decatho...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 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 file is included with %license in %files - package complies with Rust Packaging Guidelines Package APPROVED. === Recommended post-import rust-sig tasks: - 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 - add @rust-sig with "commit" access as package co-maintainer (should happen automatically) - set bugzilla assignee overrides to @rust-sig (optional) - track package in koschei for all built branches (should happen automatically once rust-sig is co-maintainer) === If you have the time, it would be great if you could look at one of my Rust packages that's currently waiting for review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2276560 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202276560%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 2279514] Review Request: rust-finl_unicode - Library for handling Unicode functionality for finl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279514 --- Comment #5 from Fabio Valentini --- (In reply to Cristian Le from comment #3) > Oh, I must have missed that one when I searched bugzilla. > > So what action do you want for this one, it is only required by `stringprep` > and if it can be decoupled there, than it is also ok. But I don't see it can > be done easily [1]. Yeah, I don't think the dependency can be dropped from stringprep easily. > As for `stringprep` it seems to be used only for `sqlx-mysql` (not really? > don't see it mentioned in code) and `sqlx-postgres` [2] I agree, the dependency seems to be unused in sqlx-mysql. So it's only a dependency in sqlx-postgres. > Otherwise should we continue from #2246779? From what I read, we need to: > - Pull in the patch in: https://github.com/dahosek/finl_unicode/pull/17 I don't think that alone would be enough. The copyright statement in the README is very strange - usually (c) "All Rights Preserved" means that something is not licensed *at all*: https://github.com/dahosek/finl_unicode?tab=readme-ov-file#unicode-copyright-notice The upstream project doesn't seem interested in addressing this issue, so I'm not sure what the best approach would be here. You might want to ask on the "legal" mailing list for help. > - Patch out the resources for benchmark? Doesn't quite make sense since srpm > would still contain the incompatible license files? I guess one option is to > ask them to move the test/benchmark files outside of crate and only in the > workspace? Would that be problematic for them? Option 1: Create a "clean" source tarball without the benchmark data. This would mean not using sources from crates.io directly. see https://github.com/statrs-dev/statrs/issues/195 for a similar issue, and https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-fiat-crypto/blob/rawhide/f/gen_clean_tarball.sh or https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-statrs/blob/rawhide/f/gen_clean_tarball.sh for possible ways to script creation of "clean" sources. Option 2: Submit a patch to upstream to exclude the offending files from published crates (i.e. with the "package.exclude" setting in Cargo.toml). That's more of a long-term solution, since it would require upstream to merge these changes and publish a new release for them to take effect. However, both of these don't address the Unicode license issue (or lack thereof). If you don't actually need the sqlx-postgres support, I would recommend to avoid packaging finl_unicode, stringprep, and sqlx-postgres for now, and to remove the unused stringprep dependency from sqlx-mysql, and revisit packaging the postgres support when / if the finl_unicode situation is cleared up. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279514 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202279514%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 2279514] Review Request: rust-finl_unicode - Library for handling Unicode functionality for finl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279514 --- Comment #4 from Cristian Le --- For now I have created the issue [1] upstream and tagged the upstream devs. Hope I described the problem accurately. [1]: https://github.com/dahosek/finl_unicode/issues/18 -- 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=2279514 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202279514%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 2254926] Review Request: perl-AnyEvent-Connector - Tcp_connect with transparent proxy handling
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2254926
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Petr Pisar ---
URL and Source0 addresses are Ok.
Source0 archive (SHA-512
83de0576b5d2ea7c3757fa5b4279463055be3c043cab5256a0adc44d0a20d9b7e826fa97cc8c92110ed8758af4af2bd0d8601c852188f9526d71f8bf12324b98)
is original. Ok.
Summary verified from lib/AnyEvent/Connector.pm.
TODO: "Tcp_connect" is cryptic in the summary. It stands for
AnyEvent::Socket::tcp_connect(). I recommend replacing "Tcp_connect" with
general "TCP connect". Another option is long "AnyEvent::Socket::tcp_connect".
Description verified from lib/AnyEvent/Connector.pm. Ok.
License verified from Build.PL, README, and lib/AnyEvent/Connector.pm. Ok.
No XS code, noarch BuildArch is Ok.
All tests pass. Ok.
$ rpmlint perl-AnyEvent-Connector.spec
../SRPMS/perl-AnyEvent-Connector-0.04-4.fc41.src.rpm
../RPMS/noarch/perl-AnyEvent-Connector-0.04-4.fc41.noarch.rpm
rpmlint session starts
===
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 32, packages: 3
perl-AnyEvent-Connector.noarch: E: spelling-error ('Tcp', 'Summary(en_US) Tcp
-> Tc, Twp, Tc p')
perl-AnyEvent-Connector.src: E: spelling-error ('Tcp', 'Summary(en_US) Tcp ->
Tc, Twp, Tc p')
=== 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings, 8 filtered, 2
badness; has taken 0.3 s ==
rpmlint is Ok.
$ rpm -q -lv -p ../RPMS/noarch/perl-AnyEvent-Connector-0.04-4.fc41.noarch.rpm
drwxr-xr-x2 root root0 Mar 8 01:00
/usr/share/doc/perl-AnyEvent-Connector
-rw-r--r--1 root root 439 Nov 7 2023
/usr/share/doc/perl-AnyEvent-Connector/Changes
-rw-r--r--1 root root 1610 Nov 7 2023
/usr/share/doc/perl-AnyEvent-Connector/README
-rw-r--r--1 root root 2884 Mar 8 01:00
/usr/share/man/man3/AnyEvent::Connector.3pm.gz
-rw-r--r--1 root root 916 Mar 8 01:00
/usr/share/man/man3/AnyEvent::Connector::Proxy::http.3pm.gz
drwxr-xr-x2 root root0 Mar 8 01:00
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/AnyEvent/Connector
-rw-r--r--1 root root 7721 Mar 8 01:00
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/AnyEvent/Connector.pm
drwxr-xr-x2 root root0 Mar 8 01:00
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/AnyEvent/Connector/Proxy
-rw-r--r--1 root root 1977 Mar 8 01:00
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/AnyEvent/Connector/Proxy/http.pm
FIX: Package %{perl_vendorlib}/AnyEvent directory. None of the dependencies
deliver it.
$ rpm -q --requires -p
../RPMS/noarch/perl-AnyEvent-Connector-0.04-4.fc41.noarch.rpm | sort -f | uniq
-c
1 perl(AnyEvent::Connector::Proxy::http)
1 perl(AnyEvent::Handle)
1 perl(AnyEvent::Socket)
1 perl(Carp)
1 perl(strict)
1 perl(URI)
1 perl(warnings)
1 perl-libs
1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
1 rpmlib(PayloadIsZstd) <= 5.4.18-1
Binary requires are Ok.
$ rpm -q --provides -p
../RPMS/noarch/perl-AnyEvent-Connector-0.04-4.fc41.noarch.rpm | sort -f | uniq
-c
1 perl(AnyEvent::Connector) = 0.04
1 perl(AnyEvent::Connector::Proxy::http)
1 perl-AnyEvent-Connector = 0.04-4.fc41
Binary provides are Ok.
$ resolvedeps rawhide
../RPMS/noarch/perl-AnyEvent-Connector-0.04-4.fc41.noarch.rpm
Binary dependencies are resolvable. Ok.
The package builds in Fedora 41
(https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=117380297). Ok.
Otherwise, the package is in line with Fedora and Perl packaging guidelines.
Please correct the FIX item and consider fixing the TODO item before building
this package.
Resolution: Package APPROVED.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2254926
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202254926%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:
[Bug 2279514] Review Request: rust-finl_unicode - Library for handling Unicode functionality for finl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279514 --- Comment #3 from Cristian Le --- Oh, I must have missed that one when I searched bugzilla. So what action do you want for this one, it is only required by `stringprep` and if it can be decoupled there, than it is also ok. But I don't see it can be done easily [1]. As for `stringprep` it seems to be used only for `sqlx-mysql` (not really? don't see it mentioned in code) and `sqlx-postgres` [2] Otherwise should we continue from #2246779? From what I read, we need to: - Pull in the patch in: https://github.com/dahosek/finl_unicode/pull/17 - Patch out the resources for benchmark? Doesn't quite make sense since srpm would still contain the incompatible license files? I guess one option is to ask them to move the test/benchmark files outside of crate and only in the workspace? Would that be problematic for them? [1]: https://github.com/sfackler/rust-stringprep/blob/6b6bbbea8c5e35526eac008845ae33b9aea0c675/src/lib.rs#L5 [2]: https://github.com/launchbadge/sqlx/blob/5d6c33ed65cc2d4671a9f569c565ab18f1ea67aa/sqlx-postgres/src/connection/sasl.rs#L10 -- 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=2279514 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202279514%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 2276290] Review Request: rust-jemalloc-sys - Rust FFI bindings to jemalloc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2276290 --- Comment #3 from Fabio Valentini --- (In reply to wojnilowicz from comment #2) > I try to package this aw-server-rust and it has this as a dependency for > Linux and x86 as seen at > https://github.com/ActivityWatch/aw-server-rust/blob/ > c056e50646b45070c330de8a6dbd14042b3455e4/aw-server/Cargo.toml#L40 Yes, but custom allocators are, by definition, optional. We already have a handful of packages in Fedora that drop custom allocators because they are painful to deal with. > Couldn't we just remove the noarch line and limit valid architectures with > ExclusiveArch similarly to > https://pkgs.rpmfusion.org/cgit/nonfree/nvidia-340xx-kmod.git/tree/nvidia- > 340xx-kmod.spec#n34 > ? No, that would be wrong. The correct solution would be to use the "supported-arches" setting in rust2rpm.toml to specify that the crate should only be built and tested on certain architectures. -- 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=2276290 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202276290%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 2258034] Review Request: python-fortranformat - reading and writing fortran style from python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2258034 Ben Beasley changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2258034 -- ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2258034] Review Request: python-fortranformat - reading and writing fortran style from python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2258034 Ben Beasley changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | |needinfo?(code@musicinmybra | |in.net) | -- 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=2258034 -- ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2258034] Review Request: python-fortranformat - reading and writing fortran style from python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2258034
Ben Beasley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #21 from Ben Beasley ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
- Dist tag is present.
OK: fedora-review does not understand rpmautospec
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT
License", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention)", "GNU
General Public License v3.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited License
[generated file]", "BSD 2-Clause License", "GNU Free Documentation
License v1.2 or later", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License".
636 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/ben/Downloads/review/2258034-python-
fortranformat/licensecheck.txt
A number of files in the source tarball appear under various other
licenses:
- GPL-3.0-or-later WITH GCC-Exception-3.1
- BSD-2-Clause
- FSFULLR
- FSFUL (possibly, FSFUL AND GPL-3.0-or-later WITH GCC-Exception-3.1)
- GFDL-1.2-invariants-or-later
- GPL-3.0-or-later
However, all of these appear in documentation, examples, tests, or
build-system files that are not packaged directly and do not contribute to
the licenses of the binary RPMs, so “MIT” is correct. Furthermore, all of
these licenses are allowed in Fedora. If you start to package examples in
the future, you will need to carefully examine their licenses to choose an
appropriate License tag for the subpackage you ship them in.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.12, /usr/share, /usr/lib,
/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages, /usr/share/doc, /usr
This diagnostic is spurious and represents a fedora-review bug.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.12,
/usr/share, /usr/lib, /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages,
/usr/share/doc, /usr
This diagnostic is spurious and represents a fedora-review bug.
[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.
[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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are
[Bug 2246852] Review Request: glinf - Print information about OpenGL or OpenGLES contexts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246852 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2024-4d25182d9d (glinf-1.0-1.fc38) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-4d25182d9d -- 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=2246852 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202246852%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 2258034] Review Request: python-fortranformat - reading and writing fortran style from python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2258034 --- Comment #20 from Ben Beasley --- Everything looks great. The spec file is clean, all issues and suggestions have been addressed, and the build runs as many tests as possible. I appreciate that you discussed the failures in the full tests with upstream, and I agree that skipping them is entirely appropriate. Thanks for your work on this. The package is APPROVED. -- 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=2258034 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202258034%23c20 -- ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2254926] Review Request: perl-AnyEvent-Connector - Tcp_connect with transparent proxy handling
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2254926 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ppi...@redhat.com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags||fedora-review? Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ppi...@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=2254926 -- ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2267973] Review Request: python-timeslot - Class for working with time slots that have an arbitrary start and end.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2267973 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added CC||loganje...@gmail.com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|loganje...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #9 from Jerry James --- I will take this 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=2267973 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202267973%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 2278420] Review Request: python-jupytext - Save Jupyter notebooks as text documents or scripts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2278420 --- Comment #3 from Jerry James --- I would be happy to swap with you. 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=2278420 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202278420%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 2246852] Review Request: glinf - Print information about OpenGL or OpenGLES contexts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246852 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2024-f20bb6203a (glinf-1.0-1.fc39) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-f20bb6203a -- 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=2246852 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202246852%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 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 Fabio Valentini changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||2268045 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268045 [Bug 2268045] Review Request: rust-atoi - Parse integers directly from [u8] slices in safe code. -- 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=177841 -- ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2268045] Review Request: rust-atoi - Parse integers directly from [u8] slices in safe code.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268045 Fabio Valentini changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) --- Comment #12 from Fabio Valentini --- > Which resulted in the following error: > https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/62109 Yes, this is expected if you have not yet been sponsored into the "packager" group yet. Please follow the steps outlined here: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Joining_the_Package_Maintainers/ Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are 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=2268045 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202268045%23c12 -- ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2246852] Review Request: glinf - Print information about OpenGL or OpenGLES contexts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246852 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2024-19049db84f (glinf-1.0-1.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-19049db84f -- 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=2246852 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202246852%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 2279514] Review Request: rust-finl_unicode - Library for handling Unicode functionality for finl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279514 Fabio Valentini changed: What|Removed |Added Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value CC||decatho...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Fabio Valentini --- This package has already been submitted twice, and it's proven to be a bit problematic - see comments on the previous tickets: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2250496 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246779 -- 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=2279514 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202279514%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 2279440] Review Request: python-pytest-lazy-fixtures - Library to use fixtures in @pytest.mark.parametrize
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279440 Bruno Meneguele changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST -- 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=2279440 -- ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2279440] Review Request: python-pytest-lazy-fixtures - Library to use fixtures in @pytest.mark.parametrize
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279440
Bruno Meneguele changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #12 from Bruno Meneguele ---
Package Review: PASS
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= 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.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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.
[-]: 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]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[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 3872 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
[-]: 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
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: 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.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[Bug 1816301] Review Request: openfoam - computational fluid dynamics
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816301 --- Comment #51 from mark.ole...@esi-group.com --- I'll try to find some time for this next week. The release index I can manage reasonably easily - provided that I have a bumped upstream patch version to start from, should be possible without colliding with previous builds. Will also adjust the spec file to "openfoam.spec" and leave the others (openfoam2306, openfoam2212 etc) as maintenance versions (as per openSUSE). The openfoam packages are designed to permit installation of a number of different release/maintenance versions, which is why we have "openfoam" as the meta package and "openfoam2312" as the concrete package etc. There are a number of cases where the user does actually want to have multiple versions installed - primarily for back-to-back comparisons, possible regression tests, transitioning coding between versions etc. -- 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=1816301 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%201816301%23c51 -- ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2279537] Review Request: rust-sqlx-core - Core of SQLx, the rust SQL toolkit. Not intended to be used directly
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279537 Cristian Le changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On|2279536 |2268045 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268045 [Bug 2268045] Review Request: rust-atoi - Parse integers directly from [u8] slices in safe code. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279536 [Bug 2279536] Review Request: rust-stringprep - Implementation of the stringprep algorithm -- 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=2279537 -- ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2279536] Review Request: rust-stringprep - Implementation of the stringprep algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279536 Cristian Le changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|2279537 | Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279537 [Bug 2279537] Review Request: rust-sqlx-core - Core of SQLx, the rust SQL toolkit. Not intended to be used directly -- 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=2279536 -- ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2268045] Review Request: rust-atoi - Parse integers directly from [u8] slices in safe code.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268045 Cristian Le changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||2279537 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279537 [Bug 2279537] Review Request: rust-sqlx-core - Core of SQLx, the rust SQL toolkit. Not intended to be used directly -- 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=2268045 -- ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2279547] Review Request: rust-sqlx - The Rust SQL Toolkit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279547 Fedora Review Service changed: What|Removed |Added URL||https://crates.io/crates/sq ||lx --- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7424598 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2279547-rust-sqlx/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07424598-rust-sqlx/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 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=2279547 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202279547%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 2279547] Review Request: rust-sqlx - The Rust SQL Toolkit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279547 Cristian Le changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||2279537, 2279540, 2279542, ||2279544, 2279546 Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279537 [Bug 2279537] Review Request: rust-sqlx-core - Core of SQLx, the rust SQL toolkit. Not intended to be used directly https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279540 [Bug 2279540] Review Request: rust-sqlx-macros - Macros for SQLx, the rust SQL toolkit. Not intended to be used directly https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279542 [Bug 2279542] Review Request: rust-sqlx-mysql - MySQL driver implementation for SQLx https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279544 [Bug 2279544] Review Request: rust-sqlx-postgres - PostgreSQL driver implementation for SQLx https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279546 [Bug 2279546] Review Request: rust-sqlx-sqlite - SQLite driver implementation for SQLx -- 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=2279547 -- ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2279544] Review Request: rust-sqlx-postgres - PostgreSQL driver implementation for SQLx
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279544 Cristian Le changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||2279547 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279547 [Bug 2279547] Review Request: rust-sqlx - The Rust SQL Toolkit -- 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=2279544 -- ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2279546] Review Request: rust-sqlx-sqlite - SQLite driver implementation for SQLx
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279546 Cristian Le changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||2279547 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279547 [Bug 2279547] Review Request: rust-sqlx - The Rust SQL Toolkit -- 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=2279546 -- ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2279540] Review Request: rust-sqlx-macros - Macros for SQLx, the rust SQL toolkit. Not intended to be used directly
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279540 Cristian Le changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||2279547 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279547 [Bug 2279547] Review Request: rust-sqlx - The Rust SQL Toolkit -- 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=2279540 -- ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2279542] Review Request: rust-sqlx-mysql - MySQL driver implementation for SQLx
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279542 Cristian Le changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||2279547 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279547 [Bug 2279547] Review Request: rust-sqlx - The Rust SQL Toolkit -- 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=2279542 -- ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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
