[Bug 1308985] Review Request: vulkan - Vulkan loader and validation layers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308985 Michael Cronenworth changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Blocks||201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) Resolution|--- |CANTFIX Flags|fedora-review+ | Last Closed||2016-09-27 10:30:47 --- Comment #18 from Michael Cronenworth --- Simone and/or Leigh, I'm considering this review dead. Adam doesn't respond to requests to move this review forward... even after it was approved. Please open a new review and assign it to me. I'll get it done. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449 [Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter response should be blocking this bug. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1308985] Review Request: vulkan - Vulkan loader and validation layers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308985 leigh scott changed: What|Removed |Added CC||leigh123li...@googlemail.co ||m --- Comment #17 from leigh scott --- (In reply to Simone Caronni from comment #16) > I also need Vulkan for the Nvidia drivers, so I'm taking it. I have packaged the latest git 1.0.26.0 https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/leigh123linux/Vulkan/builds/ -- 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 1308985] Review Request: vulkan - Vulkan loader and validation layers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308985 --- Comment #16 from Simone Caronni --- I also need Vulkan for the Nvidia drivers, so I'm taking it. -- 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 1308985] Review Request: vulkan - Vulkan loader and validation layers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308985 Simone Caronni changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|negativ...@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 https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1308985] Review Request: vulkan - Vulkan loader and validation layers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308985
Igor Gnatenko changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|ignate...@redhat.com|nob...@fedoraproject.org
--- Comment #15 from Igor Gnatenko ---
> Source0: vulkan.tar.xz
> Source1: glslang.tar.xz
using URLs please
> Group:System Environment/Libraries
> Group:Development/Libraries
> Group:System Environment/Base
not needed
> Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
missing %{?_isa}
> %doc LICENSE.txt
%license please
> #BuildArch: noarch
looks like it owns only noarch directories, so you can uncomment this.
sorry, but I don't have enough free time to continue with this Review Request.
--
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 1308985] Review Request: vulkan - Vulkan loader and validation layers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308985 Michael Cronenworth changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1356229 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356229 [Bug 1356229] RFE enable the Intel Vulkan driver -- 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 1308985] Review Request: vulkan - Vulkan loader and validation layers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308985 --- Comment #14 from Igor Gnatenko --- (In reply to Dave Airlie from comment #13) > Upstream so far says they need to be in /usr/lib directly not a > subdirectory, and I'd rather not diverge from upstream for no good reason > here. > > Jan, we can look into packaging those later, let's get the initial package > done first please. > > So what else is blocking this? I don't see any. Probably there needs update to latest version, but it should be trivial. -- 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 1308985] Review Request: vulkan - Vulkan loader and validation layers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308985 Dave Airlie changed: What|Removed |Added CC||airl...@redhat.com --- Comment #13 from Dave Airlie --- Upstream so far says they need to be in /usr/lib directly not a subdirectory, and I'd rather not diverge from upstream for no good reason here. Jan, we can look into packaging those later, let's get the initial package done first please. So what else is blocking this? -- 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 1308985] Review Request: vulkan - Vulkan loader and validation layers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308985 jan p. springer changed: What|Removed |Added CC||j...@igroup.org --- Comment #12 from jan p. springer --- any chance the lunarg tools from the sdk could be included? % ls -1 lunarg-vulkan-sdk/1.0.11.0/x86_64/bin glslangValidator spirv-as spirv-dis spirv-remap vkjson_info vkreplay vktrace vulkaninfo -- 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 http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1308985] Review Request: vulkan - Vulkan loader and validation layers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308985 --- Comment #11 from Jonathan Underwood --- Thanks for the information, Adam - this is precisely the sort of thing that should be raised and documented during package review, and is why I objected to Igor's non-existant (or at least undocumented) review and instant approval. So, I think we agree that normal practice for unversioned shared objects which are not intended to be used as system libraries (and so not directly linked against) is to place them outside the ld library paths or cache, and the guidelines allow these to not be put in a -devel sub-package. So, I agree, they don't need to be in a -devel, and they don't need to be versioned. However, I haven't seen a good argument for not putting them under/usr/lib[64]/vulkan ? -- 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 1308985] Review Request: vulkan - Vulkan loader and validation layers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308985
--- Comment #10 from Adam Jackson ---
(In reply to Jonathan Underwood from comment #9)
> > > I'm pretty sure the .so's aren't actually devel libs so shouldn't be
> > moved to the devel package, but they do need to be versioned.
> > Not yet.
Not ever, in fact.
> Why not? This needs at the very least an explicit comment in the spec file,
> and an FPC exception - right now, you're breaking guidelines. "Not yet" just
> doesn't cut it.
Because they are not things applications link against. Vulkan layers are
requested by the application explicitly, through OS configuration, or by the
user through environment variables, and the loader is responsible for inserting
them into the call chain. They do not provide useful functionality on their
own, and there is no plausible application that would try to use them on their
own.
There is no functional benefit to moving them to a directory other than
%{_libdir}, so I chose not to. Khronos intentionally left that decision up to
the operating system.
> OK, so comments need adding to the spec file indicating this, in order to
> comply with guidelines.
Sure, we can do that.
Those patches are probably not _currently_ acceptable to upstream as they make
some policy decisions that other OSes might want to do differently. I'm happy
to get that delta down as close to zero as possible.
> The libraries are currently installed in the linker path and so are public
> at the moment. They either need versioning, or moving to a non-public
> location.
I really can't agree with this logic. All library paths are public. It would
certainly be _nice_ if there existed the complement of 'ld -z nodlopen' to mean
"no really, do not link against this library", but there does not. And the set
of packages extant that explicitly link against libraries with these names is
empty. There is no danger here, only missing linker features.
The relevant section of the packaging guidelines seems simply to be missing a
clause of the conditional:
"As an additional complication, some software generates unversioned shared
objects which are not intended to be used as system libraries. These files are
usually plugins or modular functionality specific to an application, and are
not located in the ld library paths or cache. [...] Usually, these unversioned
shared objects can be found in a dedicated subdirectory under /usr/lib or
/usr/lib64 (e.g. /usr/lib/purple-2/ is the plugin directory used for libpurple
applications). In these cases, the unversioned shared objects do not need to be
placed in a -devel package."
"In these cases" could be read to mean _either_ "in cases where such libraries
exist at all" or "in cases where such libraries are packaged in a subdir below
%{_libdir}".
--
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 1308985] Review Request: vulkan - Vulkan loader and validation layers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308985
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Underwood ---
(In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #8)
> > - Package installs properly.
> > Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
> > See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
> You didn't attach anything and in fact it is installable, you have problems
> with mock or we have broken rawhide.
>
> > - Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
> > Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir.
> > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages
> See below.
>
> > - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
> > are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
> > Note: These BR are not needed: gcc gcc-c++
> > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2
> This guidelines changed recently. Now we need to require explicitly.
>
> > - Forcing the scripts to use python 2.7 should be conditionalised for
> > RHEL - no need to do that for Fedora.
> It is compile-time only. But I agree that this could be fixed.
>
> > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
> > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
> > found: "Apache (v2.0)", "GPL", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or
> > later)", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (3
> > clause)". 50 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
> > licensecheck in /home/jgu/Fedora/1308985-vulkan/licensecheck.txt
> Code which goes to install (linking and whatever) only MIT.
>
> > I'm pretty sure the .so's aren't actually devel libs so shouldn't be
> moved to the devel package, but they do need to be versioned.
> Not yet.
Why not? This needs at the very least an explicit comment in the spec file, and
an FPC exception - right now, you're breaking guidelines. "Not yet" just
doesn't cut it.
>
> > [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
> It is using %make_build which effectively does smp_mflags
>
> > Is Ajax technically upstream? If not, those patches do need pushing
> upstream and an appropriate comment added to spec for each patch.
>
> Most of all patches made only for compatibility with our guidelines and
> never will be accepted in upstream as it stays now. (Read as buildsystem
> changes). Some of patches we are going to send to upstream, but not right
> now.
>
OK, so comments need adding to the spec file indicating this, in order to
comply with guidelines.
>
>
>
> So after all only python2/python3 question still exists which could be
> easily fixed and versioning of so-files but I don't think that we need to do
> it because if understood correctly it is not going via public API so it is
> okay.
The libraries are currently installed in the linker path and so are public at
the moment. They either need versioning, or moving to a non-public location.
>
> I am still insisting that package is totally compatible with guidelines
> except few points which I mentioned above.
"Except a few points" doesn't cut it. Your approach to this review is
worryingly sloppy.
--
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 1308985] Review Request: vulkan - Vulkan loader and validation layers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308985
Igor Gnatenko changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from Igor Gnatenko ---
> - Package installs properly.
> Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
> See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
You didn't attach anything and in fact it is installable, you have problems
with mock or we have broken rawhide.
> - Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
> Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir.
> See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages
See below.
> - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
> are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
> Note: These BR are not needed: gcc gcc-c++
> See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2
This guidelines changed recently. Now we need to require explicitly.
> - Forcing the scripts to use python 2.7 should be conditionalised for
> RHEL - no need to do that for Fedora.
It is compile-time only. But I agree that this could be fixed.
> [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
> Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
> found: "Apache (v2.0)", "GPL", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or
> later)", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (3
> clause)". 50 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
> licensecheck in /home/jgu/Fedora/1308985-vulkan/licensecheck.txt
Code which goes to install (linking and whatever) only MIT.
> I'm pretty sure the .so's aren't actually devel libs so shouldn't be
moved to the devel package, but they do need to be versioned.
Not yet.
> [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
It is using %make_build which effectively does smp_mflags
> Is Ajax technically upstream? If not, those patches do need pushing
upstream and an appropriate comment added to spec for each patch.
Most of all patches made only for compatibility with our guidelines and never
will be accepted in upstream as it stays now. (Read as buildsystem changes).
Some of patches we are going to send to upstream, but not right now.
So after all only python2/python3 question still exists which could be easily
fixed and versioning of so-files but I don't think that we need to do it
because if understood correctly it is not going via public API so it is okay.
I am still insisting that package is totally compatible with guidelines except
few points which I mentioned above.
--
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 1308985] Review Request: vulkan - Vulkan loader and validation layers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308985
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Underwood ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
- Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir.
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages
- All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
Note: These BR are not needed: gcc gcc-c++
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2
- Forcing the scripts to use python 2.7 should be conditionalised for
RHEL - no need to do that for Fedora.
- Other stuff below
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Apache (v2.0)", "GPL", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or
later)", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (3
clause)". 50 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/jgu/Fedora/1308985-vulkan/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[!]: Development files must be in a -devel package
I'm pretty sure the .so's aren't actually devel libs so shouldn't be
moved to the devel package, but they do need to be versioned.
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
See above.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
Needs fixing.
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
[Bug 1308985] Review Request: vulkan - Vulkan loader and validation layers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308985 Jonathan Underwood 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1308985] Review Request: vulkan - Vulkan loader and validation layers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308985 --- Comment #6 from Jonathan Underwood --- rpmlint output: vulkan.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Vulkan vulkan.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libVkLayer_mem_tracker.so libVkLayer_mem_tracker.so vulkan.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libVkLayer_device_limits.so libVkLayer_device_limits.so vulkan.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libVkLayer_threading.so libVkLayer_threading.so vulkan.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libVkLayer_unique_objects.so libVkLayer_unique_objects.so vulkan.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/liblayer_utils.so liblayer_utils.so vulkan.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libVkLayer_param_checker.so libVkLayer_param_checker.so vulkan.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libVkLayer_swapchain.so libVkLayer_swapchain.so vulkan.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libVkLayer_object_tracker.so libVkLayer_object_tracker.so vulkan.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libVkLayer_draw_state.so libVkLayer_draw_state.so vulkan.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libVkLayer_image.so libVkLayer_image.so vulkan.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vulkaninfo vulkan-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib vulkan-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation vulkan-filesystem.noarch: W: no-documentation vulkan.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Vulkan -- 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 1308985] Review Request: vulkan - Vulkan loader and validation layers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308985 --- Comment #5 from Jonathan Underwood --- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process Includes: 5. Include the text of your review in a comment in the ticket. For easy readability, simply use a regular comment instead of an attachment. I really don't think the state of this review at present is acceptable. -- 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 1308985] Review Request: vulkan - Vulkan loader and validation layers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308985 Igor Gnatenko changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(i.gnatenko.brain@ | |gmail.com) | --- Comment #4 from Igor Gnatenko --- (In reply to Jonathan Underwood from comment #3) > Igor: did you intend setting the review flag ass passed (+)? I suspect not, > as there is no evidence here that you've reviewed the package. I reviewed package and fixed all problems which I found during review, so I set + because from my POV everything is good. If you want to re-review - you are welcome. -- 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 1308985] Review Request: vulkan - Vulkan loader and validation layers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308985 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Underwood --- Igor: did you intend setting the review flag ass passed (+)? I suspect not, as there is no evidence here that you've reviewed the 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 1308985] Review Request: vulkan - Vulkan loader and validation layers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308985 Jonathan Underwood changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(i.gnatenko.brain@ ||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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1308985] Review Request: vulkan - Vulkan loader and validation layers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308985 Jonathan Underwood changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jonathan.underw...@gmail.co ||m --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Underwood --- Err. This is a pretty scant 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1308985] Review Request: vulkan - Vulkan loader and validation layers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308985 Igor Gnatenko changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1308986 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308986 [Bug 1308986] Review Request: anvil - Vulkan drivers for Intel gen7+ -- 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 1308985] Review Request: vulkan - Vulkan loader and validation layers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308985 Igor Gnatenko changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: vulkan -|Review Request: vulkan - |Driver loader and |Vulkan loader and |validation layers for |validation layers |Vulkan | -- 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
