[Bug 1725924] Review Request: pveclib - Library for simplified access to PowerISA vector operations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1725924 Dan Horák changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2020-04-14 07:46:20 --- Comment #33 from Dan Horák --- Built and included for a long time, so let's close the 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 1725924] Review Request: pveclib - Library for simplified access to PowerISA vector operations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1725924 --- Comment #32 from Steven Jay Munroe --- > NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20190802.n.1 ... > = ADDED PACKAGES = ... > Package: pveclib-1.0.3-1.fc31 > Summary: Library for simplified access to PowerISA vector operations > RPMs:pveclib pveclib-devel pveclib-static > Size:157.71 KiB Thanks for all your help. -- 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 1725924] Review Request: pveclib - Library for simplified access to PowerISA vector operations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1725924 --- Comment #31 from Steven Jay Munroe --- From Fedora updates: This update was automatically created an hour ago This update's test gating status has been changed to 'waiting'. an hour ago This update's test gating status has been changed to 'ignored'. an hour ago This update can be pushed to stable now if the maintainer wishes an hour ago This update has been submitted for stable by bodhi. an hour ago I assume this is normal -- 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 1725924] Review Request: pveclib - Library for simplified access to PowerISA vector operations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1725924
--- Comment #30 from Steven Jay Munroe ---
ok I have been able to:
fedpkg --user munroesj52 clone pveclib
set up and run a mock build:
mock -r default --rebuild pveclib-1.0.3-1.fc30.src.rpm
then import the srpm built by mock
fedpkg --user munroesj52 import
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-ppc64le/result/pveclib-1.0.3-1.fc31.src.rpm
I had to manually git commit/push (perhaps because I had not set up
kerberos/Koji yet).
git add v1.0.3.tar.gz
git commit -m "Initial import (#1725924)."
git push
Then Koji build against the repo:
fedpkg --user munroesj52 build
with good status:
36741637 build (rawhide,
/rpms/pveclib.git:e49d0062cea3bbc86e8542357175abad416ee19b) completed
successfully
Note I use --user munroesj52 because my login for the local system is
different. Does setting up ~/.fedora.upn remove this issue?
Also Koji claimed to build for: armv7-06, s390x-18, in addition to ppc64le-24.
I had assumed that the "ExclusiveArch: ppc %{power64}" would have prevented
that?
So what is the next step?
--
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 1725924] Review Request: pveclib - Library for simplified access to PowerISA vector operations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1725924 --- Comment #29 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pveclib -- 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 1725924] Review Request: pveclib - Library for simplified access to PowerISA vector operations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1725924 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|sanjay.an...@gmail.com --- Comment #28 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) --- (In reply to Steven Jay Munroe from comment #27) > So my first attempt to request "fedpkg request-repo" was rejected because I > (no one) was not assigned to this bugzilla. Should work now. Somehow I forgot to assign the bug to myself. > > But when tried to click on the assignee link gnome mail crashed and now all > I get is "nob...@fedoraproject.org" email popup. > > Is this how this works (send email to nob...@fedoraproject.org)? I was > expecting more automation. I reckon you clicked the e-mail address which was a "mailto" link, and so it tried to open in your e-mail client. -- 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 1725924] Review Request: pveclib - Library for simplified access to PowerISA vector operations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1725924 --- Comment #27 from Steven Jay Munroe --- So my first attempt to request "fedpkg request-repo" was rejected because I (no one) was not assigned to this bugzilla. But when tried to click on the assignee link gnome mail crashed and now all I get is "nob...@fedoraproject.org" email popup. Is this how this works (send email to nob...@fedoraproject.org)? I was expecting more automation. -- 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 1725924] Review Request: pveclib - Library for simplified access to PowerISA vector operations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1725924 --- Comment #26 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) --- > Another round of tests on to verify I did not miss something then on to > fedora-review It is not required to run fedora-review on your spec/srpm now since the review here is complete, but please feel free to use fedora-review as a helper tool to run checks and review other's submissions. -- 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 1725924] Review Request: pveclib - Library for simplified access to PowerISA vector operations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1725924 --- Comment #25 from Steven Jay Munroe --- > Please explicitly version the shared objects OK > XXX APPROVED Thanks. I bumped the pveclib tag to v1.0.3 and updated the pveclib.spec to reflect that: https://github.com/open-power-sdk/fedora/blob/master/pveclib.spec Another round of tests on to verify I did not miss something then on to 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 1725924] Review Request: pveclib - Library for simplified access to PowerISA vector operations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1725924
Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
|needinfo?(extras-qa@fedorap |
|roject.org) |
--- Comment #24 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) ---
(In reply to Steven Jay Munroe from comment #19)
>
>
> I have multiple masters here and trying keep them all happy.
Ugh, this will not be easy. While they all use RPM, the guidelines for
packaging can be quite different. You can either keep different spec files for
them or use conditionals if you'd like to keep a single spec.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/DistTag/#_conditionals
(I do not know about other distributions, sorry).
(In reply to Steven Jay Munroe from comment #22)
> So here is a cleaner build on COPR using the latest master with a temporary
> tag v1.0.2y.
>
> https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/munroesj52/pveclib/fedora-30-
> ppc64le/00978483-pveclib/
> https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/munroesj52/pveclib/fedora-
> rawhide-ppc64le/00978483-pveclib/
>
> Turns out the build process is really picked about all the version #s
> matching. And having pveclib.spec in the source tree is a mistake.
Yes, while the versions of rpms and upstream must match, the rpms can carry
tweaks and changes and the release tag incremented each time, accordingly.
> Now the rpmlint is clean expect the spelling of altivec.h:
>
> $ rpmlint ./rpmbuild/
> pveclib.ppc64le: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US altivec -> elective
> pveclib.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US altivec -> elective
> 6 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
^ That's fine.
>
> one weird thing is that the RPMS built by COPR have bad signatures
>
> Error checking signature of
> /home/sjmunroe/rpmtest/pveclib-debuginfo-1.0.2y-1.fc30.ppc64le.rpm:
> /home/sjmunroe/rpmtest/pveclib-debuginfo-1.0.2y-1.fc30.ppc64le.rpm: digests
> SIGNATURES NOT OK
>
> rpm -ql complains: Header V3 RSA/SHA1 Signature, key ID 81dc7181: NOKEY
>
> But the ones I build on Fedora 30 P8 does NOT have these errors.
>
> I have no idea what this is oe how to deal with this.
I wouldn't worry about it. When built using koji, these should not occur.
The spec looks pretty good now. One last nitpick, but you can change that
before you import into SCM:
Please explicitly version the shared objects
%{_libdir}/libpvec.so.0
%{_libdir}/libpvec.so.0.0.0
This ensures that any soname bumps will not slip through.
XXX APPROVED
I've now sponsored you to the packager group! Welcome!!
Please import the package and build it following the process here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Add_Package_to_Source_Code_Management_.28SCM.29_system_and_Set_Owner
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
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 1725924] Review Request: pveclib - Library for simplified access to PowerISA vector operations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1725924 --- Comment #23 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) --- (In reply to Steven Jay Munroe from comment #20) > Ankur you provided the link to https://pagure.io/FedoraReview above. I > assumed that you intended that I used this tool to find issues and address > them. > > But When I followed the install instructions and tried "python3 > try-fedora-review --help" the tool ask for a password. > > It is not what the password is for and the obvious choices (local sudo and > Fedora login) did not work. > > Some additional clues are needed. `sudo dnf -y install fedora-review` is sufficient---you needn't fetch if from git. Lots of options though, so please look at man fedora-review to see how to use it. The general usage is: fedora-review -b review-ticket-number -- 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 1725924] Review Request: pveclib - Library for simplified access to PowerISA vector operations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1725924 --- Comment #22 from Steven Jay Munroe --- So here is a cleaner build on COPR using the latest master with a temporary tag v1.0.2y. https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/munroesj52/pveclib/fedora-30-ppc64le/00978483-pveclib/ https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/munroesj52/pveclib/fedora-rawhide-ppc64le/00978483-pveclib/ Turns out the build process is really picked about all the version #s matching. And having pveclib.spec in the source tree is a mistake. Now the rpmlint is clean expect the spelling of altivec.h: $ rpmlint ./rpmbuild/ pveclib.ppc64le: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US altivec -> elective pveclib.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US altivec -> elective 6 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. one weird thing is that the RPMS built by COPR have bad signatures Error checking signature of /home/sjmunroe/rpmtest/pveclib-debuginfo-1.0.2y-1.fc30.ppc64le.rpm: /home/sjmunroe/rpmtest/pveclib-debuginfo-1.0.2y-1.fc30.ppc64le.rpm: digests SIGNATURES NOT OK rpm -ql complains: Header V3 RSA/SHA1 Signature, key ID 81dc7181: NOKEY But the ones I build on Fedora 30 P8 does NOT have these errors. I have no idea what this is oe how to deal with 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 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 1725924] Review Request: pveclib - Library for simplified access to PowerISA vector operations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1725924 --- Comment #21 from Steven Jay Munroe --- I have a successful build on COPR with using the latest master with a temporary tag v1.0.2x https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/munroesj52/pveclib/fedora-30-ppc64le/00977765-pveclib/ https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/munroesj52/pveclib/fedora-rawhide-ppc64le/00977765-pveclib/ If this if acceptable I will tag the master as v1.0.3 and update the spec-file to match. -- 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 1725924] Review Request: pveclib - Library for simplified access to PowerISA vector operations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1725924 Steven Jay Munroe changed: What|Removed |Added CC||extras...@fedoraproject.org Flags||needinfo?(extras-qa@fedorap ||roject.org) --- Comment #20 from Steven Jay Munroe --- Ankur you provided the link to https://pagure.io/FedoraReview above. I assumed that you intended that I used this tool to find issues and address them. But When I followed the install instructions and tried "python3 try-fedora-review --help" the tool ask for a password. It is not what the password is for and the obvious choices (local sudo and Fedora login) did not work. Some additional clues are needed. -- 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 1725924] Review Request: pveclib - Library for simplified access to PowerISA vector operations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1725924 --- Comment #19 from Steven Jay Munroe --- - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ * pveclib.spec [BuildRequires]: Add gcc-c++. - ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. Note: /sbin/ldconfig called in pveclib See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Removing_ldconfig_scriptlets ^ No need for them now so they can be removed. [%post, %postun] Depreacted, removed Is COPYING the same as LICENSE? It should be in %license nevertheless. Yes but some older distros require/expect it and rpmlint did not like the symlink. So I duplicated LICENSE to COPYING. I have multiple masters here and trying keep them all happy. [%license]: Add COPYING. [%doc]: COPYING here too. - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. not there yet working on it. Trying not the burn another version tag until we have this ready to go. - %configure is called twice---is that intentional? Noop, removed the dup. [?]: Package functions as described. ^ You'll have to check this Make check verifies this. Tested for -mcpu=power7/8/9 using gcc 6/7/8/9. Fedora tests are GCC9 -mcpu=power8 AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found -- AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: /home/asinha/dump/fedora-review/pveclib/review- pveclib/upstream-unpacked/Source0/pveclib-1.0.2/configure.ac:15 ^ Also worth checking and reporting upstream. I found not indication that is Obsoleted. Found and corrected 2 other cases. * configure.ac [AC_INIT] Bump version to 1.0.3 AC_CANONICAL_SYSTEM is deprecated, Replace with AC_CANONICAL_TARGET. AM_PROG_CC_C_O is deprecated, remove. -- 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 1725924] Review Request: pveclib - Library for simplified access to PowerISA vector operations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1725924
--- Comment #18 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) ---
Looks good. A few tweaks are all that are needed now.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package installs properly.
^
I'm unable to check this.
- If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/
- ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
Note: /sbin/ldconfig called in pveclib
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Removing_ldconfig_scriptlets
^
No need for them now so they can be removed.
- 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 not marked as %license
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text
^
Is COPYING the same as LICENSE? It should be in %license nevertheless.
- Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/asinha/dump/fedora-
review/pveclib/review-pveclib/diff.txt
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/
^
Please check this.
- %configure is called twice---is that intentional?
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[?]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
Note: Sources not installed
^
fedora-review picked this up. Not entirely sure if this is needed.
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: 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.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
Note: Using prebuilt packages
^
Ran a scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=36361206
[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.
[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.
[x]: 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 61440 bytes in 6 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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]: 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: Static libraries in -static or -devel
[Bug 1725924] Review Request: pveclib - Library for simplified access to PowerISA vector operations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1725924 --- Comment #17 from Steven Jay Munroe --- Ok I have new copr build https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/munroesj52/pveclib/fedora-30-ppc64le/00968950-pveclib/ SRPM: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/munroesj52/pveclib/fedora-30-ppc64le/00968950-pveclib/pveclib-1.0.2-1.fc30.src.rpm SPEC: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/munroesj52/pveclib/fedora-30-ppc64le/00968950-pveclib/pveclib.spec -- 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 1725924] Review Request: pveclib - Library for simplified access to PowerISA vector operations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1725924 --- Comment #16 from Steven Jay Munroe --- So now I am getting: pveclib-static.ppc64le: W: no-documentation in addition to: pveclib-devel.ppc64le: W: no-documentation But by adding: %doc README.md to "%files devel" and "%files static" those warnings go away. and now I only get: $ rpmlint ./rpmbuild/ pveclib.ppc64le: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US altivec -> elective pveclib.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US altivec -> elective 6 packages and 2 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Is this 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 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 1725924] Review Request: pveclib - Library for simplified access to PowerISA vector operations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1725924 --- Comment #15 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) --- (In reply to Steven Jay Munroe from comment #14) > Antonio > > >Could you please provide links to the new spec/srpm when you've made changes? > > Pull request including spec changes are here: > https://github.com/open-power-sdk/pveclib/pull/79 > > waiting for feed back on the Debian side. Then I will commit and and run a > build on COPR Okay. Great. Please drop a comment with the spec/sprm URLs and I'll go through them again. > > > You define a new sub-package,... > > So ... add? > > %package static > > %description static > > %files static Yes, that'll do it. This can be done to add any arbitrary sub-packages. The commonest ones, of course, are -doc, -devel, -static. -- 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 1725924] Review Request: pveclib - Library for simplified access to PowerISA vector operations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1725924 --- Comment #14 from Steven Jay Munroe --- Antonio >Could you please provide links to the new spec/srpm when you've made changes? Pull request including spec changes are here: https://github.com/open-power-sdk/pveclib/pull/79 waiting for feed back on the Debian side. Then I will commit and and run a build on COPR > You define a new sub-package,... So ... add? %package static %description static %files static -- 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 1725924] Review Request: pveclib - Library for simplified access to PowerISA vector operations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1725924 --- Comment #13 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) --- (In reply to Steven Jay Munroe from comment #12) > Making progress on clean up of rpmlint issues: > > Latest changes in pull request > https://github.com/open-power-sdk/pveclib/pull/79 for review. > > Current results: > $ rpmlint ./rpmbuild/ > pveclib.ppc64le: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US altivec -> elective > pveclib-devel.ppc64le: W: no-documentation > pveclib.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US altivec -> elective > 5 packages and 2 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. > > Not sure is the no-documentation is a show stopper. Not sure what do as man > files would be useless and generating PDF would add a lot more dependencies > to the build. If the man files are part of the source, they may be included. This isn't a blocker. > > Antonio: > > I merged most of your suggestions except for: > - The static libraries MUST be placed in a *-static sub-package. > > The referenced doc tells me what but not how. I will need examples. You define a new sub-package, like the devel package is defined, and add the related files to the new files section. Here is an example package: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/klt/blob/master/f/klt.spec#_43 Could you please provide links to the new spec/srpm when you've made changes? That way, we always run checks on the newest iterations and don't end up pointing out issues that have already been fixed. -- 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 1725924] Review Request: pveclib - Library for simplified access to PowerISA vector operations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1725924 --- Comment #12 from Steven Jay Munroe --- Making progress on clean up of rpmlint issues: Latest changes in pull request https://github.com/open-power-sdk/pveclib/pull/79 for review. Current results: $ rpmlint ./rpmbuild/ pveclib.ppc64le: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US altivec -> elective pveclib-devel.ppc64le: W: no-documentation pveclib.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US altivec -> elective 5 packages and 2 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Not sure is the no-documentation is a show stopper. Not sure what do as man files would be useless and generating PDF would add a lot more dependencies to the build. Antonio: I merged most of your suggestions except for: - The static libraries MUST be placed in a *-static sub-package. The referenced doc tells me what but not how. I will need examples. -- 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 1725924] Review Request: pveclib - Library for simplified access to PowerISA vector operations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1725924 --- Comment #11 from Steven Jay Munroe --- making some progress: > > pveclib.ppc64le: W: dangling-relative-symlink > > /usr/share/licenses/pveclib/COPYING LICENSE rpmbuild/rpmlint just can't handle the symlink. I can copy LICENSE over COPYING (to check licensing separate from doc) or rename LICENSE to COPYING (and use COPYING for both). Either eliminated this warning. > > pveclib.ppc64le: W: dangling-relative-symlink > > /usr/share/licenses/pveclib/COPYING LICENSE This library (currently) has not dependencies (all data). I can make rpmlint happy by adding the fake dependency: libpvec_la_LIBADD = -lc > > pveclib-devel.ppc64le: W: no-documentation Not sure what this is: I have 200 pages of documentation our on github: https://munroesj52.github.io/ But not the king of thing you should put in a man file. The ChangeLog.md CONTRIBUTING.md COPYING README.md files are installed in /usr/share/doc/pveclib/ and pveclib-1.0.2-1.fc30.ppc64le.rpm but not pveclib-devel-1.0.2-1.fc30.ppc64le.rpm not sure what I am missing here. -- 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 1725924] Review Request: pveclib - Library for simplified access to PowerISA vector operations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1725924 Hanns-Joachim Uhl changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bugpr...@us.ibm.com External Bug ID||IBM Linux Technology Center ||178815 -- 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 1725924] Review Request: pveclib - Library for simplified access to PowerISA vector operations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1725924 --- Comment #10 from Dan Horák --- (In reply to Steven Jay Munroe from comment #9) > > pveclib.src: W: invalid-license APACHE > > So you want this spelled out as "Apache Software License 2.0" or the short > form "ASL 2.0" ? should be the short name from https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Good_Licenses > > pveclib.ppc64le: E: shared-lib-without-dependency-information > > /usr/lib64/libpvec.so.0.0.0 > > The current build only uses the static libraries for some unit tests. As is > these libraries only contains arrays of large numeric constants. But this > might change in later pveclib version are more complex operations are added. > > > pveclib.ppc64le: W: dangling-relative-symlink > > /usr/share/licenses/pveclib/COPYING LICENSE > > looks like I am caught on the horns of the "LICENSE" vs "COPYING" > controversy: > > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5678462/should-i-provide-a-license-txt- > or-copying-txt-file-in-my-project > > The symlink avoids duplicating the file. While preserving COPYING for lint > checks that insist on that file is there. > > Not sure why it is "dangling" because it is used in Makefile.am > > +dist_license_DATA = COPYING > > +dist_doc_DATA = CONTRIBUTING.md README.md ChangeLog.md > > Based on https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1536209 I assumed this > is what you (Fedora) wanted. AFAIK it's OK to have the license text part of the autotools "docs" and then the rpmbuild will care about the details in the background when %license and %doc tags are used in the spec. -- 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 1725924] Review Request: pveclib - Library for simplified access to PowerISA vector operations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1725924 Dan Horák changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1071880 (PPCTracker) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1071880 [Bug 1071880] (PPCTracker) Fedora for PowerPC architectures (ppc64,ppc64le): Bug Tracker -- 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 1725924] Review Request: pveclib - Library for simplified access to PowerISA vector operations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1725924 --- Comment #9 from Steven Jay Munroe --- > pveclib.src: W: invalid-license APACHE So you want this spelled out as "Apache Software License 2.0" or the short form "ASL 2.0" ? > pveclib.ppc64le: E: shared-lib-without-dependency-information > /usr/lib64/libpvec.so.0.0.0 The current build only uses the static libraries for some unit tests. As is these libraries only contains arrays of large numeric constants. But this might change in later pveclib version are more complex operations are added. > pveclib.ppc64le: W: dangling-relative-symlink > /usr/share/licenses/pveclib/COPYING LICENSE looks like I am caught on the horns of the "LICENSE" vs "COPYING" controversy: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5678462/should-i-provide-a-license-txt-or-copying-txt-file-in-my-project The symlink avoids duplicating the file. While preserving COPYING for lint checks that insist on that file is there. Not sure why it is "dangling" because it is used in Makefile.am +dist_license_DATA = COPYING +dist_doc_DATA = CONTRIBUTING.md README.md ChangeLog.md Based on https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1536209 I assumed this is what you (Fedora) wanted. I am working on the other issues. -- 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 1725924] Review Request: pveclib - Library for simplified access to PowerISA vector operations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1725924 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #8 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) --- Ha, no worries Antonio, please feel free to provide comments too :) Here are some preliminary notes too. The scratch build succeeds: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=36021962 rpmlint picks up a few important things that need looking into. `rpmlint -i` would give more verbose results: /home/asinha/rpmbuild/SPECS/pveclib.spec:1: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 1) ^ Please use either spaces or tabs, it's just good to be consistent. pveclib.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US intrinsics -> intrinsic, intrinsic s, extrinsic pveclib.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US altivec -> elective ^ Can be ignored. pveclib.src: W: invalid-license APACHE ^ The License is OK, but the right name needs to be picked for the specfile. Please have a look here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Good_Licenses pveclib.ppc64le: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.0.2 ['1.0.2-7.fc31', '1.0.2-7'] ^ The changelog must reflect the version/release correctly. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#changelogs You can start with the Release as 1 here. That only needs to be bumped when the spec is changed and a new build is to be made. pveclib.ppc64le: E: shared-lib-without-dependency-information /usr/lib64/libpvec.so.0.0.0 ^ Will have to look deeper to see what this one is about. pveclib.ppc64le: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/licenses/pveclib/COPYING LICENSE ^ Please fix 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 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 1725924] Review Request: pveclib - Library for simplified access to PowerISA vector operations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1725924 --- Comment #7 from Antonio Trande --- Oops! Sorry Ankur. -- 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 1725924] Review Request: pveclib - Library for simplified access to PowerISA vector operations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1725924
Antonio Trande changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
CC||anto.tra...@gmail.com
--- Comment #6 from Antonio Trande ---
- Use built-in macros as much as possible
(https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_macros):
'%setup -q -n %{name}-%{version}' --> %autosetup
'make %{?_smp_mflags}' --> %make_build
'make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT' --> %make_install
'rm -rf %{buildroot}/usr/share/doc/libpvec/ChangeLog.md' --> rm -rf
%{buildroot}%{_datadir}/doc/libpvec/ChangeLog.md
- Move %check section after the %install one
- Is it needed to re-run %configure in %check?
- The static libraries MUST be placed in a *-static sub-package.
(https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_packaging_static_libraries)
- The lines
%dir %{_includedir}/pveclib
%{_includedir}/pveclib/vec_common_ppc.h
%{_includedir}/pveclib/vec_f128_ppc.h
%{_includedir}/pveclib/vec_f64_ppc.h
%{_includedir}/pveclib/vec_f32_ppc.h
%{_includedir}/pveclib/vec_int128_ppc.h
%{_includedir}/pveclib/vec_int64_ppc.h
%{_includedir}/pveclib/vec_int32_ppc.h
%{_includedir}/pveclib/vec_int16_ppc.h
%{_includedir}/pveclib/vec_char_ppc.h
%{_includedir}/pveclib/vec_bcd_ppc.h
can be condensed with
%{_includedir}/pveclib/
- The line '%{!?_licensedir:%global license %%doc}' is useless
--
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 1725924] Review Request: pveclib - Library for simplified access to PowerISA vector operations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1725924 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #5 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) --- I can review this, and I'm also a sponsor so I can sponsor you when the time comes :) Would you be able to do a few informal reviews yourself while we go through this ticket? That'll help you pick up the process and the tools quicker: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group#Show_Your_Expertise_by_Commenting_on_other_Review_Requests (When you comment with your review, please mention that it's an informal review because you're still waiting to be sponsored). -- 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 1725924] Review Request: pveclib - Library for simplified access to PowerISA vector operations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1725924 --- Comment #4 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) --- No worries, also need the "raw" link for the spec so fedora-review can download it: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/open-power-sdk/pveclib/master/pveclib.spec -- 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 1725924] Review Request: pveclib - Library for simplified access to PowerISA vector operations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1725924 --- Comment #3 from Steven Jay Munroe --- > Could we please have the complete link to the source rpm also? (fedora-review > will not work otherwise.) Ok I am learning: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/munroesj52/pveclib/fedora-rawhide-ppc64le/00955639-pveclib/pveclib-1.0.2-7.fc31.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 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 1725924] Review Request: pveclib - Library for simplified access to PowerISA vector operations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1725924 --- Comment #2 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) --- (In reply to Steven Jay Munroe from comment #0) > Spec URL: https://github.com/open-power-sdk/pveclib/blob/master/pveclib.spec > SRPM URL: > https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/munroesj52/pveclib/packages/ Could we please have the complete link to the source rpm also? (fedora-review will not work otherwise.) https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/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 1725924] Review Request: pveclib - Library for simplified access to PowerISA vector operations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1725924 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|New Package pveclib |Review Request: pveclib - ||Library for simplified ||access to PowerISA vector ||operations Alias||pveclib -- 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
