[Bug 1246199] Review Request: rdopkg - RPM packaging automation tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246199

Mattia Verga  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE
Last Closed||2021-07-04 15:18:35



--- Comment #22 from Mattia Verga  ---
Package is in repos


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Bug 1246199] Review Request: rdopkg - RPM packaging automation tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246199
Bug 1246199 depends on bug 1246192, which changed state.

Bug 1246192 Summary: Review Request: python-pymod2pkg - python module to 
package map
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246192

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1246199] Review Request: rdopkg - RPM packaging automation tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246199

mpr...@redhat.com  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||mpr...@redhat.com



--- Comment #21 from mpr...@redhat.com  ---
Please disregard the above comment. That was testing in stage.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1246199] Review Request: rdopkg - RPM packaging automation tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246199



--- Comment #20 from mpr...@redhat.com  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.stg.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rdopkg. You may modify the branch "f26"
in about 10 minutes.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1246199] Review Request: rdopkg - RPM packaging automation tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246199



--- Comment #19 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rdopkg

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1246199] Review Request: rdopkg - RPM packaging automation tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246199

Haïkel Guémar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|POST
  Flags|needinfo?(hgue...@redhat.co |fedora-review+
   |m)  |



--- Comment #18 from Haïkel Guémar  ---
1. Please fix the source mismatch, but since you're upstream maintainer, I
trust you
for using published tarballs. Anyway, it does build with the other one
2. I'd move generic build time dependencies git and asciidoc outside of the
python2 subpackage
3. Minor item, rdopkg main package does not need to include license file since
it pulls it from python{2,3}-rdopkg.


Other, I hereby approve this package into Fedora Packages Collection, just make
sure to fix
the items pointed above.


Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
===
- Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
  in the spec URL.
  Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in
  /home/hguemar/1246199-rdopkg/diff.txt
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL


= 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: "Apache", "*No copyright* Apache", "Unknown or generated", "*No
 copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 156 files have unknown license. Detailed
 output of licensecheck in
 /home/hguemar/1246199-rdopkg/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 266240 bytes in 10 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
 process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
 provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

[Bug 1246199] Review Request: rdopkg - RPM packaging automation tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246199

Haïkel Guémar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|hgue...@redhat.com  |karlthe...@gmail.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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1246199] Review Request: rdopkg - RPM packaging automation tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246199

Neal Gompa  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||hgue...@redhat.com
  Flags||needinfo?(hgue...@redhat.co
   ||m)



--- Comment #17 from Neal Gompa  ---
@Haikel, do you still want to review this package?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1246199] Review Request: rdopkg - RPM packaging automation tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246199

Neal Gompa  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1246199] Review Request: rdopkg - RPM packaging automation tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246199



--- Comment #16 from Neal Gompa  ---
Looks good to me at this point. That said, Haikel needs actually do the
approval. :)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1246199] Review Request: rdopkg - RPM packaging automation tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246199



--- Comment #15 from Jakub Ruzicka  ---
W: file-size-mismatch rdopkg-0.45.0.tar.gz

is a one time issue due to .spec being included in tarball and I regenerated
that without updating PyPI version. Once reviewd, .spec will move to fedora
distgit so this will no longer be an issue.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1246199] Review Request: rdopkg - RPM packaging automation tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246199



--- Comment #14 from Jakub Ruzicka  ---
Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/softwarefactory-project/rdopkg/master/rdopkg.spec
SRPM URL: https://jruzicka.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/rdopkg-0.45.0-3.fc25.src.rpm

Note this package built successfully in my copr on f2{5,6,7}, el7 and rawhide:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jruzicka/rdopkg/build/597985/

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1246199] Review Request: rdopkg - RPM packaging automation tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246199



--- Comment #13 from Jakub Ruzicka  ---
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #12)
> > I wanted to wait until it's supported in latest EL to avoid %if but OK, 
> > I'll pave the way ;)
> 
> I'm not sure how it could get supported in EL7, since RPM 4.11 and Yum don't
> support it. We'd be waiting for EL8...
> 
> Just do "%if 0%{?fedora} || 0%{?rhel} >= 8"

I've addressed your suggestions in
https://softwarefactory-project.io/r/#/c/9546/

Please either leave +1/-1 there (you can login with github) or let me know here
if it's OK.

> If there's a missing dependency, I'd rather block rdopkg from being included
> period.

Although missing python3-bunch is being investigated, it is absolutely no
reason to block because rdopkg has on-demand import and the missing dep is only
needed for `rdopkg cbsbuild` command which is CLI and CLI depends on python2
version so it's all good.

I specifically built rdopkg in a way so that one broken subcommand doesn't
block entire project and missing deps only surface for commands that really use
them. Unlike usual python LOAD ALL THE MODULES and then really use 2 of them ;)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1246199] Review Request: rdopkg - RPM packaging automation tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246199



--- Comment #12 from Neal Gompa  ---
> I wanted to wait until it's supported in latest EL to avoid %if but OK, I'll 
> pave the way ;)

I'm not sure how it could get supported in EL7, since RPM 4.11 and Yum don't
support it. We'd be waiting for EL8...

Just do "%if 0%{?fedora} || 0%{?rhel} >= 8"

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1246199] Review Request: rdopkg - RPM packaging automation tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246199



--- Comment #11 from Jakub Ruzicka  ---
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #10)
> > The Python 3 support is rather fresh and not well tested. Furthermore, 
> > python3-bunch isn't available. I'll switch python3-rdopkg to provide rdopkg 
> > as soon as I'm confident in py3 support (in rdopkg and in EL).
> 
> If there's a missing dependency, I'd rather block rdopkg from being included
> period. In addition, your current scheme does not allow for a seamless
> transition from Python 2 to Python 3 for rdopkg because in order to switch
> it, you'd have to obsolete the python2 version, which may not necessarily
> work. I would suggest splitting out /usr/bin/rdopkg into an rdopkg
> subpackage that Requires the python2 or python3 version depending on what
> you prefer.

Good suggestion, will do.

> For the "optional but recommended" thing, please use Recommends for Fedora.
> If it's not a hard dependency, don't make it one.

I wanted to wait until it's supported in latest EL to avoid %if but OK, I'll
pave the way ;)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1246199] Review Request: rdopkg - RPM packaging automation tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246199



--- Comment #10 from Neal Gompa  ---
> The Python 3 support is rather fresh and not well tested. Furthermore, 
> python3-bunch isn't available. I'll switch python3-rdopkg to provide rdopkg 
> as soon as I'm confident in py3 support (in rdopkg and in EL).

If there's a missing dependency, I'd rather block rdopkg from being included
period. In addition, your current scheme does not allow for a seamless
transition from Python 2 to Python 3 for rdopkg because in order to switch it,
you'd have to obsolete the python2 version, which may not necessarily work. I
would suggest splitting out /usr/bin/rdopkg into an rdopkg subpackage that
Requires the python2 or python3 version depending on what you prefer.

For the "optional but recommended" thing, please use Recommends for Fedora. If
it's not a hard dependency, don't make it one.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1246199] Review Request: rdopkg - RPM packaging automation tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246199



--- Comment #9 from Jakub Ruzicka  ---
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #8)
> Why does the Python 2 version "Provides: rdopkg = %{version}-%{release}"?

Because previously, the package was called just `rdopkg`, this is backward
compat.

> Why can't the Python 3 version do that in Fedora and EL7?

The Python 3 support is rather fresh and not well tested. Furthermore,
python3-bunch isn't available. I'll switch python3-rdopkg to provide rdopkg as
soon as I'm confident in py3 support (in rdopkg and in EL).

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1246199] Review Request: rdopkg - RPM packaging automation tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246199

Neal Gompa  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ngomp...@gmail.com



--- Comment #8 from Neal Gompa  ---
Why does the Python 2 version "Provides: rdopkg = %{version}-%{release}"? Why
can't the Python 3 version do that in Fedora and EL7?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1246199] Review Request: rdopkg - RPM packaging automation tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246199



--- Comment #7 from Jakub Ruzicka  ---
Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/softwarefactory-project/rdopkg/master/rdopkg.spec
SRPM URL: https://jruzicka.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/rdopkg-0.45.0-1.fc25.src.rpm

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1246199] Review Request: rdopkg - RPM packaging automation tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246199



--- Comment #6 from Jakub Ruzicka  ---
Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/softwarefactory-project/rdopkg/master/rdopkg.spec
SRPM URL: https://jruzicka.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/rdopkg-0.45-0.fc25.src.rpm
Description: rdopkg is a tool for automating RPM packaging tasks such as
managing patches, updating to a new version and much more.
Fedora Account System Username: jruzicka

Now with python3 package, tox and pbr support :)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1246199] Review Request: rdopkg - RPM packaging automation tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246199
Bug 1246199 depends on bug 1264164, which changed state.

Bug 1264164 Summary: Review Request: python-rdoupdate - Manipulation and 
validation of YAML update files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264164

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |EOL



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1246199] Review Request: rdopkg - RPM packaging automation tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246199



--- Comment #5 from Jakub Ruzicka  ---
I decided to split rdopkg into a framework and a tool, which will be quite a
big change so I'll probably wait with the Fedora inclusion until the split is
successful.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1246199] Review Request: rdopkg - RPM packaging automation tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246199

Jakub Ruzicka  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||1264164
  Flags|needinfo?(jruzicka@redhat.c |
   |om) |



--- Comment #4 from Jakub Ruzicka  ---
I'll submit new spec/srpm once both python-pymod2pkg and python-rdoupdate are
available in Fedora.


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264164
[Bug 1264164] Review Request: python-rdoupdate - Manipulation and
validation of YAML update files
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1246199] Review Request: rdopkg - RPM packaging automation tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246199

Haïkel Guémar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||jruzi...@redhat.com,
   ||karlthe...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review?
   ||needinfo?(jruzicka@redhat.c
   ||om)



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1246199] Review Request: rdopkg - RPM packaging automation tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246199



--- Comment #3 from hgue...@redhat.com ---
@Jakub: could you update the src,rpm too?

* drop the Group tag, unused now
* please switch to python versioned macros
* we need to review the python-rdoupdate package (same fixes should be applied
to the existing package)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1246199] Review Request: rdopkg - RPM packaging automation tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246199

Jakub Ruzicka jruzi...@redhat.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||1246192




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246192
[Bug 1246192] Review Request: python-pymod2pkg - python module to package
map
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1246199] Review Request: rdopkg - RPM packaging automation tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246199



--- Comment #2 from Jakub Ruzicka jruzi...@redhat.com ---
rdopkg uses colors extensivly and many outputs are significantly less readable
without them so I'd leave it as hard dependency. I'll remove the comment :)

I plan to make rdopkg more modular in the future so let's just deal with the
hard deps for now and I'll consider using weak dependencies in the future as
I'm very curious about them :)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1246199] Review Request: rdopkg - RPM packaging automation tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246199

Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1246199] Review Request: rdopkg - RPM packaging automation tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246199

Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||i...@cicku.me



--- Comment #1 from Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me ---
What about using weak dependency for python-blessings?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1246199] Review Request: rdopkg - RPM packaging automation tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246199

Jakub Ruzicka jruzi...@redhat.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|hgue...@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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review