[Bug 1827901] Review Request: zswap-cli - Command-line tool to control zswap options

2020-05-05 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827901



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2020-75d218e536 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository.
If problem still persists, 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
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 1827901] Review Request: zswap-cli - Command-line tool to control zswap options

2020-04-27 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827901



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2020-75d218e536 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing
--advisory=FEDORA-2020-75d218e536 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-75d218e536

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information
on how to test updates.


-- 
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 1827901] Review Request: zswap-cli - Command-line tool to control zswap options

2020-04-27 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827901

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2020-04-28 02:32:31



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2020-5e3032c74d has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository.
If problem still persists, 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
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 1827901] Review Request: zswap-cli - Command-line tool to control zswap options

2020-04-27 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827901

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|MODIFIED



--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2020-5e3032c74d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-5e3032c74d

--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2020-75d218e536 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-75d218e536


-- 
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 1827901] Review Request: zswap-cli - Command-line tool to control zswap options

2020-04-27 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827901

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|MODIFIED



--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2020-5e3032c74d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-5e3032c74d


-- 
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 1827901] Review Request: zswap-cli - Command-line tool to control zswap options

2020-04-26 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827901



--- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/zswap-cli


-- 
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 1827901] Review Request: zswap-cli - Command-line tool to control zswap options

2020-04-25 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827901

Artem  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||ego.corda...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ego.corda...@gmail.com
   Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Artem  ---
%{?systemd_requires} is not necessary anymore, see this for example
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1807753#c14

As for 'No known owner of /etc/default' there is already upstream issue:
https://github.com/xvitaly/zswap-cli/issues/28

Please, use full link without macroses in URL:
https://github.com/xvitaly/zswap-cli
It's much easier to click on link in your code editor.

All this minor issues could be fixed during import and next version. Tested for
few days this package and all fine. Package approved.

---

Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
 BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[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: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License", "*No copyright* Expat
 License". 26 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /mnt/data-linux/tmp/review/1827901-zswap-
 cli/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 Note: No known owner of /etc/default
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/default
[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.
[x]: 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.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 4 files.
[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: No rpmlint messages.
[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]: 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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]: No %config files under /usr.
[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]: Spe