[Bug 1256492] Review Request: python-libnuma - Python bindings for the numactl library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1256492 Jiri Kastner changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Flags|needinfo?(cz172...@gmail.co | |m) | Last Closed||2022-05-10 04:12:08 --- Comment #27 from Jiri Kastner --- closing -- 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=1256492 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 1256492] Review Request: python-libnuma - Python bindings for the numactl library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1256492 Guy Streeter changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(cz172...@gmail.co |needinfo?(cz172...@gmail.co |m) |m) --- Comment #26 from Guy Streeter --- I can't see a way for me to close this issue. I opened it, and I don't care about it any more. -- 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=1256492 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
needinfo canceled: [Bug 1256492] Review Request: python-libnuma - Python bindings for the numactl library
Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Guy Streeter has canceled Package Review 's request for Jiri Kastner 's needinfo: Bug 1256492: Review Request: python-libnuma - Python bindings for the numactl library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1256492 --- Comment #26 from Guy Streeter --- I can't see a way for me to close this issue. I opened it, and I don't care about it any more. ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 1256492] Review Request: python-libnuma - Python bindings for the numactl library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1256492 Guy Streeter changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(guy.streeter@gmai | |l.com) | --- Comment #24 from Guy Streeter --- I have retired. Nobody ever used this but me, and I don't any more. -- 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 1256492] Review Request: python-libnuma - Python bindings for the numactl library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1256492 Jiri Kastner changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(guy.streeter@gmai ||l.com) --- Comment #23 from Jiri Kastner --- @guy.stree...@gmail.com can you please update with current python guidelines? (python2 removal and so on) if this request is still actual for you? also python-hwloc -- 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 1256492] Review Request: python-libnuma - Python bindings for the numactl library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1256492 Jiri Kastner changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(cz172...@gmail.co | |m) | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
needinfo canceled: [Bug 1256492] Review Request: python-libnuma - Python bindings for the numactl library
Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Jiri Kastner has canceled Package Review 's request for Jiri Kastner 's needinfo: Bug 1256492: Review Request: python-libnuma - Python bindings for the numactl library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1256492 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 1256492] Review Request: python-libnuma - Python bindings for the numactl library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1256492 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||ppi...@redhat.com 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1256492] Review Request: python-libnuma - Python bindings for the numactl library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1256492 Jiri Kastner changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|jkast...@redhat.com |cz172...@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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1256492] Review Request: python-libnuma - Python bindings for the numactl library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1256492 Guy Streeter changed: What|Removed |Added CC||guy.stree...@gmail.com --- Comment #21 from Guy Streeter --- The git repo for python-libnuma is now at https://gitlab.com/guystreeter/python-libnuma.git and my email is guy.stree...@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 1256492] Review Request: python-libnuma - Python bindings for the numactl library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1256492 --- Comment #19 from Guy Streeter --- Above changes checked in. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1418 https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/streeter/python-hwloc/ -- 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 1256492] Review Request: python-libnuma - Python bindings for the numactl library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1256492 --- Comment #18 from Guy Streeter --- numactl is not being built for arm: * Sat Jun 18 2011 Peter Robinson - 2.0.7-2 - Exclude ARM platforms I've copied the ExcludeArch line from the numactl specfile to mine. -- 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 1256492] Review Request: python-libnuma - Python bindings for the numactl library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1256492 --- Comment #17 from Guy Streeter --- The py3_build/install macros are not available in Fedora 21. They were added to F22. I'll change the python2 commands to use the macros, but leave the python3 commands as they are until F21 End Of Life. -- 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 1256492] Review Request: python-libnuma - Python bindings for the numactl library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1256492 --- Comment #16 from Guy Streeter --- As far as I know, only x86_64 has NUMA architecture. When I started this, libnuma was only available on that architecture. I see that it is available for the rest now, so I can remove that arch restriction. I'll test the py?_build macros to see if they will work. I had problems using them before. The py?_install macros should be OK. They seem to do the same thing my command does. I'll change that. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1256492] Review Request: python-libnuma - Python bindings for the numactl library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1256492 --- Comment #15 from Jiri Kastner --- why "ExclusiveArch: x86_64" is not buildable for arm and i386 which are also primary architectures? why not use this like in packaging guidelines for python? %build %py2_build %py3_build %install # Must do the python2 install first because the scripts in /usr/bin are # overwritten with every setup.py install, and in general we want the # python3 version to be the default. %py2_install %py3_install -- 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 1256492] Review Request: python-libnuma - Python bindings for the numactl library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1256492 --- Comment #14 from Guy Streeter --- I've committed version 2.2.3-2.0: removed %clean added %check stripped the binary added license text to source files. Built in koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11098362 Available in copr: https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/streeter/python-hwloc/ What else should I do? Are there things in the fedora-review that I need to address? thanks, --Guy -- 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 1256492] Review Request: python-libnuma - Python bindings for the numactl library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1256492 --- Comment #13 from Jiri Kastner --- This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla: - Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such a list, create one. - Add your own remarks to the template checks. - Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not listed by fedora-review. - Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this case you could also file a bug against fedora-review - Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines in what you paste. - Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint ones are mandatory, though) - Remove this text Package Review == Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: === - If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. Note: License file COPYING is marked as %doc instead of %license See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text = MUST items = C/C++: [ ]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. Generic: [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/indy/packaging/review/python-libnuma /review-python-libnuma/licensecheck.txt [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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 [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: The spec file handles locales properly. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 61440 bytes in 4 files. [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: 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 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [ ]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [ ]: A package which is used by another package via an eg
[Bug 1256492] Review Request: python-libnuma - Python bindings for the numactl library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1256492 --- Comment #12 from Guy Streeter --- I forgot to push a tag for it. There is am upstream source file now. --Guy -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1256492] Review Request: python-libnuma - Python bindings for the numactl library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1256492 --- Comment #11 from Jiri Kastner --- [indy@localhost python-libnuma]$ rpmbuild -bs ~/rpmbuild/SPECS/python-libnuma.spec Wrote: /home/indy/rpmbuild/SRPMS/python-libnuma-2.2-2.0.fc22.src.rpm [indy@localhost python-libnuma]$ cp ~/rpmbuild/SRPMS/python-libnuma-2.2-2.0.fc22.src.rpm . [indy@localhost python-libnuma]$ fedora-review -n python-libnuma INFO: Processing local files: python-libnuma INFO: Getting .spec and .srpm Urls from : Local files in /home/indy/packaging/review/python-libnuma INFO: --> SRPM url: file:///home/indy/packaging/review/python-libnuma/python-libnuma-2.2-2.0.fc22.src.rpm INFO: --> Spec url: file:///home/indy/packaging/review/python-libnuma/python-libnuma.spec INFO: Using review directory: /home/indy/packaging/review/python-libnuma/review-python-libnuma INFO: Downloading (Source0): https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/python-libnuma.git/snapshot/python-libnuma-2.2-2.0.tar.gz WARNING: Cannot download url: https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/python-libnuma.git/snapshot/python-libnuma-2.2-2.0.tar.gz INFO: Using local file python-libnuma-2.2-2.0.tar.gz as Source0 INFO: Running checks and generating report INFO: Results and/or logs in: /home/indy/packaging/review/python-libnuma/review-python-libnuma/results INFO: WARNING: Probably non-rawhide buildroot used. Rawhide should be used for most package reviews INFO: Build completed INFO: Installing built package(s) INFO: Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api ERROR: 'Source0: upstream source not found' (logs in /home/indy/.cache/fedora-review.log) -- 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 1256492] Review Request: python-libnuma - Python bindings for the numactl library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1256492 --- Comment #10 from Guy Streeter --- How does this look? $ rpm -qlp SRPMS/python-libnuma-2.2-2.0.fc21.src.rpm python-libnuma-2.2-2.0.tar.gz python-libnuma.spec $ rpm -qlp RPMS/x86_64/python2-libnuma-2.2-2.0.fc21.x86_64.rpm /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/libnuma.so /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/python2_libnuma-2.0-py2.7.egg-info /usr/share/doc/python2-libnuma /usr/share/doc/python2-libnuma/COPYING /usr/share/doc/python2-libnuma/LICENSE /usr/share/locale/en_US/LC_MESSAGES/python2-libnuma.mo $ rpm -qlp RPMS/x86_64/python3-libnuma-2.2-2.0.fc21.x86_64.rpm /usr/lib64/python3.4/site-packages/libnuma.cpython-34m.so /usr/lib64/python3.4/site-packages/python3_libnuma-2.0-py3.4.egg-info /usr/share/doc/python3-libnuma /usr/share/doc/python3-libnuma/COPYING /usr/share/doc/python3-libnuma/LICENSE /usr/share/locale/en_US/LC_MESSAGES/python3-libnuma.mo I followed the example in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Common_SRPM_vs_split_SRPMs koji scratch build http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10858080 -- 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 1256492] Review Request: python-libnuma - Python bindings for the numactl library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1256492 --- Comment #9 from Jiri Kastner --- +1 :) -- 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 1256492] Review Request: python-libnuma - Python bindings for the numactl library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1256492 --- Comment #8 from Guy Streeter --- I understand now. I thought you were saying I should make a specfile that would be edited to produce each package, one at a time. I can create a specfile that builds both packages at the same time. I'll start work on that. thanks, --Guy -- 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 1256492] Review Request: python-libnuma - Python bindings for the numactl library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1256492 --- Comment #7 from Jiri Kastner --- for example dnf: upstream - https://github.com/rpm-software-management/dnf and fedora git tree for package - http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/dnf.git/tree/ for specfile and patches tarball is in sideload usig fedpkg try this: "fedpkg clone -a dnf" and clone from github dnf repo. srpm or tar.gz you can get using tito build --tgz or tito build --srpm. from that you can see, that from one upstream source is generated one spoecfile, one tarball and srpm. -- 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 1256492] Review Request: python-libnuma - Python bindings for the numactl library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1256492 --- Comment #6 from Guy Streeter --- I promise I'm not trying to be difficult. If that's the correct way to set it up, I'll change it. Perhaps there's something about the way packages are built in the distro I don't understand. I assumed a src.rpm was submitted to the the build system. Is that incorrect? Not being a maintainer, I haven't ever participated in that process. I've looked for information about how you get from source code to built package in the repo, but I can't find it. If I knew that, I could make sure my source is prepared for it. Do you have a link to that? I'd be really happy to see something that says "this is how your source tree should be laid out." thanks, --Guy -- 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 1256492] Review Request: python-libnuma - Python bindings for the numactl library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1256492 --- Comment #5 from Jiri Kastner --- hey man, do you want to get package reviewed? :) one specfile means one review, less mess. i'm not aware of any package maintained in way you want to go. i would understand your attitude if resulting specfile would look like kernel specfile, but that is exception. with two specfiles and two srpms in case of abandoning python2 in future of fedora means retiring packages. i would also understand your attitude if you will have two separated repositories, but you you have code in one repo. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1256492] Review Request: python-libnuma - Python bindings for the numactl library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1256492 --- Comment #4 from Guy Streeter --- The combined specfile would have to be edited and checked in to build each of the packages, one at a time. I don't see an advantage to that. Keeping them separate will also allow fixes and updates to be made independently for the two packages. -- 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 1256492] Review Request: python-libnuma - Python bindings for the numactl library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1256492 --- Comment #3 from Jiri Kastner --- tito - https://github.com/dgoodwin/tito rpmbuild with -tX options works on tarball directly if spec file is in toplevel directory you can have one specfile and put all to it. and use %global with_python3 1 %if 0%{?with_python3} ... %{__python3} setup.py build ... %endif see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Python3.4GuidlinesDraft -- 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 1256492] Review Request: python-libnuma - Python bindings for the numactl library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1256492 --- Comment #2 from Guy Streeter --- Jiri, Thank you for reviewing this package. The source is used to build two separate packages, python-libnuma and python3-libnuma. That's the reason there are 2 specfiles. I don't know what tito is. Is that something I need? Why does rmpbuild need the specfiles in the top-level directory? The package is designed to build and install from setup.py for platforms that don't use rpm. It seems like packaging-specific files should be in their own directory. tuna, python-linux-procfs, and python-schedutils all have this directory layout. The top-level Makefile has a target to build rpms. thanks again, --Guy -- 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 1256492] Review Request: python-libnuma - Python bindings for the numactl library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1256492 Jiri Kastner changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jkast...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jkast...@redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Jiri Kastner --- instead of 2 specfiles, ther should be one and not in rpm/SPECS folder but in toplevel directory (good for tito for example and for rpmbuild too). -- 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 1256492] Review Request: python-libnuma - Python bindings for the numactl library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1256492 Antonio Trande changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1083720 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1083720 [Bug 1083720] Review Request: python-hwloc - Python bindings for hwloc -- 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 1256492] Review Request: python-libnuma - Python bindings for the numactl library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1256492 Guy Streeter changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) 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 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