[Bug 1450590] Review Request: watchman - a file watching service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1450590 Mattia Verga changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed||2020-06-14 07:52:26 --- Comment #22 from Mattia Verga --- Closing after two years without any response from the original submitter. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor 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 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 1450590] Review Request: watchman - a file watching service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1450590 --- Comment #21 from Jon Dufresne --- Should this be closed as a duplicate of Bug 1564720? -- 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 1450590] Review Request: watchman - a file watching service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1450590 Laurent Rineau changed: What|Removed |Added CC||laurent.rineau__fedora@norm ||alesup.org --- Comment #20 from Laurent Rineau --- This review seems stalled, and now that Git version 2.16 has a support for watchman (to speed up operations on big working directories), the inclusion of watchman in Fedora is even more interesting. I cannot download https://mattysmith.co.uk/watchman/watchman.spec James Hogarth, do you have the last version of the spec file? -- 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 1450590] Review Request: watchman - a file watching service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1450590 James Hogarth changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(asymptotically508 ||@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 1450590] Review Request: watchman - a file watching service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1450590 --- Comment #19 from James Hogarth --- Oh ignore that bit about the rm ... I just re-read what it was about ... Just get it to 4.9.0 and remove that hidden file and it's an 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 1450590] Review Request: watchman - a file watching service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1450590
--- Comment #18 from James Hogarth ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[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.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)
BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (unspecified)", "*No copyright* BSD
(unspecified)", "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)", "*No copyright*
Apache (v2.0)". 235 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/james/workspace/fedora-
scm/1450590-watchman/licensecheck.txt
[-]: 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
[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.
[-]: 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
[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
[!]: 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:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
watchman-debuginfo
[x]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packag
[Bug 1450590] Review Request: watchman - a file watching service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1450590 Matthew Smith changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(asymptotically508 | |@gmail.com) | --- Comment #17 from Matthew Smith --- Whoops, sorry about that. They're back up now. Spec URL: https://mattysmith.co.uk/watchman/watchman.spec SRPM URL: https://mattysmith.co.uk/watchman/watchman-4.7.0-4.fc26.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 1450590] Review Request: watchman - a file watching service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1450590 James Hogarth changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(asymptotically508 ||@gmail.com) --- Comment #16 from James Hogarth --- Matt I just got time to pick this up and the URLs are dead. If you can pop them back up I'll do a final review and we can get this in place. -- 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 1450590] Review Request: watchman - a file watching service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1450590 Matthew Smith changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(asymptotically508 | |@gmail.com) | --- Comment #15 from Matthew Smith --- Spec URL: https://mattysmith.co.uk/fedora/watchman/watchman.spec SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/3524/20163524/watchman-4.7.0-4.fc27.src.rpm Scratch Build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=20163523 >on my testing there was no need to include --disable-python as there is no >python in the buildroot to be picked up anyway. Without --without-python it it still tries to include Python.h, which makes the build fail. -- 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 1450590] Review Request: watchman - a file watching service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1450590
--- Comment #14 from James Hogarth ---
To ensure the doc location complies with guidelines what I think would be
better would be to include at the end of your %install:
rm -rf %{buildroot}%{_docdir}/%{name}*
and then in your %files just have:
%doc README.markdown
__
Separate to that can you please ass --disable-silent-rules to your ./configure
and on my testing there was no need to include --disable-python as there is no
python in the buildroot to be picked up anyway.
Finally from a syntax/grammar perspective to make life easier on other
maintainers, can you please do one line per BuildRequires ?
--
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 1450590] Review Request: watchman - a file watching service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1450590
--- Comment #13 from Matthew Smith ---
>- Either use %doc and let it copy over to the right location or set %doc at
>the >start
So should the %files look something like this?
>%files
>%{_bindir}/watchman
>%{_sharedstatedir}/watchman
>%license LICENSE
>%doc %{_datarootdir}/doc/%{name}-%{version}/README.markdown
Thanks
--
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 1450590] Review Request: watchman - a file watching service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1450590
James Hogarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||asymptotically...@gmail.com
Flags||needinfo?(asymptotically508
||@gmail.com)
--- Comment #12 from James Hogarth ---
So the FPC agree the wording needs to be cleaned up, but the way the libraries
are handled in watchman complies with policy :)
So the only things that need to be cleared up IIRC are:
- Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
Note: watchman-2.spec should be watchman.spec
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Spec_file_name
- Directory /usr/share/doc/watchman-4.7.0 is not owned
- Either use %doc and let it copy over to the right location or set %doc at the
start
of the path to where documentation is installed, don't do both in %files
- The v in %changelog should not be there, only the number eg 4.7.0-3 not
v4.7.0-3
- %install must not have the rm -rf line
- The spec in your review must match the spec in the srpm for the review
If you can please update with that sorted out I'll be able to approve the
package, and then do a quick review of your informal reviews and if all good
get you in the packagers group :)
--
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 1450590] Review Request: watchman - a file watching service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1450590 --- Comment #11 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski --- Both URLs to SPEC files are returning 404 now. -- 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 1450590] Review Request: watchman - a file watching service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1450590 --- Comment #10 from James Hogarth --- Apologies for the delays but I had some family issues that delayed responses. Based on the discussions upstream, and the change in bundling policies in recent times, I don't think this should be an actual blocker. That being said the specific language in the guidelines appears ambiguous as there is a clear NO STATIC WITHOUT EXCEPTION followed by "well, bundle if you really have to". They way we handle such a situation in Fedora to get clarification is via our Fedora Packaging Committee (FPC). The ticket has been opened for the clarification request here: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/692 -- 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 1450590] Review Request: watchman - a file watching service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1450590 s...@less-broken.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||s...@less-broken.com --- Comment #9 from s...@less-broken.com --- Hi folks -- I'm a Fedora package maintainer (albeit for a small package), and also one of the original authors of Watchman. I'm very interested in getting Watchman into Fedora -- we believe it's the most robust directory watching tool in existence. I understand and respect the motivations behind wanting to unbundle libraries, but as Wez pointed out in https://github.com/facebook/watchman/issues/474#issuecomment-303563584 that wouldn't be appropriate here. We've forked these libraries and made invasive changes to them -- they're effectively internal components at this point. It is not really possible to extricate our changes, unfortunately. Consider a slightly different situation where we wrote a JSON library, wildmatch, libart etc from scratch for Watchman. I'm sure unbundling wouldn't be a problem in that case. Would it be possible to treat our current situation as this slightly different but still legitimate 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 1450590] Review Request: watchman - a file watching service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1450590 --- Comment #8 from James Hogarth --- Thanks for opening the issue with them, I have commented on it supporting you. In the meanwhile if you could progress with the informal/unofficial package reviews and provide them to me we can take care of the requirements for sponsorship into the packagers group. Where we go from here for this application will depend on how the conversation goes upstream :) -- 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 1450590] Review Request: watchman - a file watching service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1450590 --- Comment #7 from Matthew Smith --- I opened an issue upstream and it seems like they have forked/heavily modified the libraries from upstream so I don't think that it'd be right to package these libraries under the same name (they are not compatible APIs). After reading https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bundled_Libraries and https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Statically_Linking_Executables I'm still not sure what I should do. Any ideas? Thanks -- 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 1450590] Review Request: watchman - a file watching service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1450590 --- Comment #6 from James Hogarth --- Yes indeed Either of those can be the package that you use to become a package maintainer.. you'll still need to carry out a few unofficial reviews to demonstrate understanding of the packaging guidelines before I can approve you to join the maintainers of course. If you can cc me when you open the package reviews for the other libraries I'll handle those as well. Block each of them on FE-NEEDSPONSOR until one of them has completed review and you've joined the package maintainer group. I suggest initially opening an issue with them to see if they are willing to modify their build scripts to use dynamically linked system libraries upstream to minimise the pain of a maintainer patch carrying out the unbundling yourself. -- 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 1450590] Review Request: watchman - a file watching service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1450590 --- Comment #5 from Matthew Smith --- Thanks for the reply :) Looks like there are 4 libraries statically linked with watchman. There's jansson which is already in the Fedora repositories. However libart, wildmatch and tap are not already in the Fedora repositories, would I need to make separate packages for these and then edit the watchman build scripts to use system version libraries instead of the bundled libraries? -- 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 1450590] Review Request: watchman - a file watching service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1450590
James Hogarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review-
--- Comment #4 from James Hogarth ---
Initial review at this time:
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
- Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
Note: watchman-2.spec should be watchman.spec
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Spec_file_name
- Third party libraries are statically embedded in the binary
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Statically_Linking_Executables
- The static library license is not declared in the SPEC license field
- Directory /usr/share/doc/watchman-4.7.0 is not owned
- Either use %doc and let it copy over to the right location or set %doc at the
start
of the path to where documentation is installed, don't do both in %files
- The v in %changelog should not be there, only the number eg 4.7.0-3 not
v4.7.0-3
- %install must not have the rm -rf line
- The spec in your review must match the spec in the srpm for the review
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[!]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[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)", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)
BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (unspecified)", "*No copyright* BSD
(unspecified)", "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)", "*No copyright*
Apache (v2.0)". 235 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/james/workspace/fedora-
scm/1450590-watchman-2/licensecheck.txt
[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/doc/watchman-4.7.0
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/doc/watchman-4.7.0
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[!]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: 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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 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]: 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 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
[!]: 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.
[!]: 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 c
[Bug 1450590] Review Request: watchman - a file watching service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1450590 James Hogarth changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||james.hoga...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|james.hoga...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from James Hogarth --- Hi Matthew, I am a sponsor and will take this review. Could you please carry out 2-3 informal (unofficial) reviews on packages in the package review queue to demonstrate your understanding of the Fedora Packaging Guidelines. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group This is important as once sponsored as a Fedora Package Maintainer you will be able to review and approve any other maintainer's potential packages. I'll add my review shortly. -- 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 1450590] Review Request: watchman - a file watching service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1450590 --- Comment #2 from Matthew Smith --- Sorry for making so many changes but I found that the build was broken on Fedora 26 because of the upgrade to GCC 7. The source needed a small patch to work again, I wasn't sure where I should upload it during the package review so I have just uploaded it with the spec and SRPM. Hopefully that's okay. Spec URL: https://mattysmith.co.uk/watchman/watchman-2.spec SRPM URL: https://mattysmith.co.uk/watchman/watchman-4.7.0-3.fc26.src.rpm Patch0 URL: https://mattysmith.co.uk/watchman/watchman-4.7.0-fallthrough.patch Scratch Build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=19598470 -- 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 1450590] Review Request: watchman - a file watching service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1450590 --- Comment #1 from Matthew Smith --- After running fedora-review it seems like there are a few problems with my package. I have moved the storage directory to /var/lib/watchman which after reading man hier seems a bit more appropriate. Currently instead of a man page, make install copies a markdown file into /usr/share/doc/. Should I rewrite this as a man page and try to get it merged upstream? Here are my changes so far: Spec URL: https://mattysmith.co.uk/watchman/watchman-2.spec SRPM URL: https://mattysmith.co.uk/watchman/watchman-4.7.0-2.fc25.src.rpm Scratch Build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=19546652 Thanks again -- 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 1450590] Review Request: watchman - a file watching service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1450590 Matthew Smith 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
