[Bug 1319289] Review Request: rubygem-review - Flexible document format/conversion system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1319289



--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System  ---
rubygem-review-1.7.2-3.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable
repository. If problems still persist, 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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1319289] Review Request: rubygem-review - Flexible document format/conversion system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1319289



--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System  ---
rubygem-review-1.7.2-3.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository.
If problems still persist, 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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1319289] Review Request: rubygem-review - Flexible document format/conversion system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1319289



--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System  ---
rubygem-review-1.7.2-3.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository.
If problems still persist, 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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1319289] Review Request: rubygem-review - Flexible document format/conversion system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1319289

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-05-04 14:52:51



-- 
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 1319289] Review Request: rubygem-review - Flexible document format/conversion system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1319289



--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System  ---
rubygem-review-1.7.2-3.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-b0561d5d2a

-- 
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 1319289] Review Request: rubygem-review - Flexible document format/conversion system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1319289



--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System  ---
rubygem-review-1.7.2-3.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-e96b805c6b

-- 
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 1319289] Review Request: rubygem-review - Flexible document format/conversion system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1319289

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System  ---
rubygem-review-1.7.2-3.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-36c69445a6

-- 
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 1319289] Review Request: rubygem-review - Flexible document format/conversion system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1319289



--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System  ---
rubygem-review-1.7.2-3.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-36c69445a6

-- 
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 1319289] Review Request: rubygem-review - Flexible document format/conversion system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1319289



--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
rubygem-review-1.7.2-3.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-e96b805c6b

-- 
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 1319289] Review Request: rubygem-review - Flexible document format/conversion system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1319289

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED



-- 
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 1319289] Review Request: rubygem-review - Flexible document format/conversion system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1319289



--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System  ---
rubygem-review-1.7.2-3.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-b0561d5d2a

-- 
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 1319289] Review Request: rubygem-review - Flexible document format/conversion system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1319289



--- Comment #11 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/rubygem-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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1319289] Review Request: rubygem-review - Flexible document format/conversion system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1319289



--- Comment #10 from Antonio Trande  ---
Thank you.

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

[Bug 1319289] Review Request: rubygem-review - Flexible document format/conversion system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1319289

Mukundan Ragavan  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #9 from Mukundan Ragavan  ---
Ok, this looks good to me. Package APPROVED.

Thanks for the quick fixes.

-- 
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 1319289] Review Request: rubygem-review - Flexible document format/conversion system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1319289



--- Comment #8 from Antonio Trande  ---
Spec URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/rubygem-review/rubygem-review.spec
SRPM URL:
https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/rubygem-review/rubygem-review-1.7.2-3.fc23.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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1319289] Review Request: rubygem-review - Flexible document format/conversion system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1319289



--- Comment #7 from Mukundan Ragavan  ---
ed attempt to not list same file two times.
> 
> > 
> > 
> > -doc package will have no difference. Please fix this.
> > 
> 
> Sorry, I miss it.
> Fix what?

Nothing to fix here. I meant to say "please fix this" in the context of
%license macro.

Hope that clarifies.

-- 
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 1319289] Review Request: rubygem-review - Flexible document format/conversion system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1319289



--- Comment #6 from Antonio Trande  ---
(In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #5)
> 
> 
> There is one mistake in the spec file. You are installing the license file
> and immediately excluding it.
> 
> %license %{gem_instdir}/COPYING
> 
> 
> 
> %exclude %{gem_instdir}/COPYING
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> I got rid of the exclude line and built a package. See the difference in
> files here - 
> 
> $ diff -Nu w_excld wo_excld
> --- w_excld   2016-04-20 18:58:21.183113956 -0400
> +++ wo_excld  2016-04-20 18:57:55.818377962 -0400
> @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@
>  /usr/bin/review-validate
>  /usr/bin/review-vol
>  /usr/share/gems/gems/review-1.7.2
> +/usr/share/gems/gems/review-1.7.2/COPYING
>  /usr/share/gems/gems/review-1.7.2/ChangeLog
>  /usr/share/gems/gems/review-1.7.2/Dockerfile
>  /usr/share/gems/gems/review-1.7.2/Gemfile
> 
> 
> wo_excld - package build without the exclude lien
> w_excld - package build with the spec linked here.

Failed attempt to not list same file two times.

> 
> 
> -doc package will have no difference. Please fix this.
> 

Sorry, I miss it.
Fix what?

-- 
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 1319289] Review Request: rubygem-review - Flexible document format/conversion system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1319289



--- Comment #5 from Mukundan Ragavan  ---

(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #4)
> (In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #3)
> > Package Review
> > ==
> > 
> > 
> > - 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: Cannot find COPYING in rpm(s)
> >   See:
> >   http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
> > 
> > 
> > ---> License file is installed in the main package.
> > 
> > /usr/share/gems/gems/review-1.7.2/COPYING
> > 
> > 
> > But, license file should be installed like this - 
> > 
> > %license %{gem_instdir}/LICENSE
> > 
> 
> Okay.



There is one mistake in the spec file. You are installing the license file and
immediately excluding it.

%license %{gem_instdir}/COPYING



%exclude %{gem_instdir}/COPYING

Why?


I got rid of the exclude line and built a package. See the difference in files
here - 

$ diff -Nu w_excld wo_excld
--- w_excld2016-04-20 18:58:21.183113956 -0400
+++ wo_excld2016-04-20 18:57:55.818377962 -0400
@@ -11,6 +11,7 @@
 /usr/bin/review-validate
 /usr/bin/review-vol
 /usr/share/gems/gems/review-1.7.2
+/usr/share/gems/gems/review-1.7.2/COPYING
 /usr/share/gems/gems/review-1.7.2/ChangeLog
 /usr/share/gems/gems/review-1.7.2/Dockerfile
 /usr/share/gems/gems/review-1.7.2/Gemfile


wo_excld - package build without the exclude lien
w_excld - package build with the spec linked here.


-doc package will have no difference. Please fix this.


> 
> > /usr/share/gems/gems/review-1.7.2/lib/uuid.rb 644 /usr/bin/env
> > 
> > ---> Please review.
> 
> Fixed.
> 

---> This does not seem to be fixed.

$ rpmls rubygem-review-1.7.2-2.fc25.noarch.rpm



-rw-r--r--  /usr/share/gems/gems/review-1.7.2/lib/uuid.rb




Other than these two, I do not have any other issues. Please take a look. I am
ready to approve once these are taken care of.

-- 
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 1319289] Review Request: rubygem-review - Flexible document format/conversion system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1319289



--- Comment #4 from Antonio Trande  ---
(In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #3)
> Package Review
> ==
> 
> 
> - 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: Cannot find COPYING in rpm(s)
>   See:
>   http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
> 
> 
> ---> License file is installed in the main package.
> 
> /usr/share/gems/gems/review-1.7.2/COPYING
> 
> 
> But, license file should be installed like this - 
> 
> %license %{gem_instdir}/LICENSE
> 

Okay.


> = SHOULD items =
> 
> Generic:
> [?]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
>  Note: Package contains font files
> 
> ---> As far as I can tell, this is ok since it's used in examples, I think.
> 
> /usr/share/doc/rubygem-review/html/fonts/Lato-Light.ttf
> /usr/share/doc/rubygem-review/html/fonts/Lato-LightItalic.ttf
> /usr/share/doc/rubygem-review/html/fonts/Lato-Regular.ttf
> /usr/share/doc/rubygem-review/html/fonts/Lato-RegularItalic.ttf
> /usr/share/doc/rubygem-review/html/fonts/SourceCodePro-Bold.ttf
> /usr/share/doc/rubygem-review/html/fonts/SourceCodePro-Regular.ttf
> 
> Am I right? Can you check?

See bz#1224715.


> Ruby:
> [!]: Gem package should exclude cached Gem.
> 
> ---> I cannot find reference to excluding cached gem here -
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby
> 
> 
> Can you please verify this?

Cache excluded.

> 
> [!]: Gem should use %gem_install macro.

It's used.

> [!]: Specfile should use macros from rubygem-devel package.
>  Note: The specfile doesn't use these macros: %doc %{gem_docdir},
>  %exclude %{gem_cache}, %{gem_libdir}
> 
> ---> Please revisit macros.

Okay.

> /usr/share/gems/gems/review-1.7.2/lib/uuid.rb 644 /usr/bin/env
> 
> ---> Please review.

Fixed.

> 
> rubygem-review.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
> /usr/share/gems/gems/review-1.7.2/COPYING
> rubygem-review.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
> /usr/share/gems/gems/review-1.7.2/.rubocop_todo.yml
> rubygem-review.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
> /usr/share/gems/gems/review-1.7.2/.travis.yml
> rubygem-review.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
> /usr/share/gems/gems/review-1.7.2/.rubocop.yml
> 
> ---> Needed?

Removed.

Spec URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/rubygem-review/rubygem-review.spec
SRPM URL:
https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/rubygem-review/rubygem-review-1.7.2-2.fc23.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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1319289] Review Request: rubygem-review - Flexible document format/conversion system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1319289

Antonio Trande  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

External Bug ID||Red Hat Bugzilla 1224715



-- 
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 1319289] Review Request: rubygem-review - Flexible document format/conversion system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1319289



--- Comment #3 from Mukundan Ragavan  ---

Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- gems should require rubygems package
  Note: Requires: rubygems missing in rubygem-review-doc
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#RubyGems
- Package contains Requires: ruby(release).

---> Guidelines at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#RubyGems
states

" There should not be Requires: ruby(release), unless you want to explicitly
specify Ruby version compatibility. Automatically generated dependency on
RubyGems (Requires: ruby(rubygems)) is enough. "

Automatically generated requires shows "ruby(rubygems)" (below).

So, this seems to be bogus.


- 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: Cannot find COPYING in rpm(s)
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text


---> License file is installed in the main package.

/usr/share/gems/gems/review-1.7.2/COPYING


But, license file should be installed like this - 

%license %{gem_instdir}/LICENSE


= 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: "LGPL (v2.1)", "Unknown or generated". 128 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/mukundan/ownCloud/misc_pkgs/pkg_reviews/1319289-rubygem-
 review/licensecheck.txt

---> This seems mostly fine.

[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.

---> Please see my comment above.

[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
 Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required

---> This seems fine to me. The only rm -rf statements I see are fine.

[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: 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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Ruby:
[x]: Platform dependent files must all go under %{gem_extdir_mri}, platform
 independent under %{gem_dir}.
[x]: Gem package must not define a non-gem subpackage
[x]: Macro %{gem_extdir} is deprecated.
[x]: Gem package is named rubygem-%{gem_name}
[x]: 

[Bug 1319289] Review Request: rubygem-review - Flexible document format/conversion system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1319289



--- Comment #2 from Mukundan Ragavan  ---
Will post review tomorrow. Sorry for the delay.

-- 
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 1319289] Review Request: rubygem-review - Flexible document format/conversion system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1319289

Mukundan Ragavan  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||nonamed...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|nonamed...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #1 from Mukundan Ragavan  ---
Taking this up 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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review