[Bug 958344] Review Request: python-extras - Useful extra bits for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958344 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||python-extras-0.0.3-2.fc19 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2013-06-07 23:40:49 --- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System --- python-extras-0.0.3-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=trIbDynyhc&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958344] Review Request: python-extras - Useful extra bits for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958344 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|python-extras-0.0.3-2.fc19 |python-extras-0.0.3-2.fc18 --- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System --- python-extras-0.0.3-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=GhGgVMKT5p&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958344] Review Request: python-extras - Useful extra bits for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958344 --- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System --- python-extras-0.0.3-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=VZUk0i3iTJ&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958344] Review Request: python-extras - Useful extra bits for Python
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958344 Michel Alexandre Salim changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||886003 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=lGztKokiNj&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958344] Review Request: python-extras - Useful extra bits for Python
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958344 Mario Blättermann changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m --- Comment #1 from Mario Blättermann --- Please remove the upstream provided egginfo so that it gets rebuilt. See the packaging guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python_Eggs#Upstream_Eggs %install rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT The initial cleaning of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT is obsolete, unless you want to provide a package for EPEL5. In this case, you have to add some more stuff (BuildRoot tag, %clean section): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=jqW8yXlpw2&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958344] Review Request: python-extras - Useful extra bits for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958344
Jerry James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||loganje...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|loganje...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Jerry James ---
Issues, in no particular order:
1. Why is the python3 build disabled by default? I'm curious, because I
already have a package I want to build for Fedora that will need the
python3 version of extras.
2. The fedora-review complaint about the BR is because you used the name
"python-devel" instead of "python2-devel". I'm not sure it matters.
3. As already noted, please remove the existing Python egg in %prep.
4. Consider adding a %check script
5. Consider preserving timestamps on the files with shebang changes (in %prep).
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package complies to the 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". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/jamesjer/958344-python-extras/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (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]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[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 %doc.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[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
[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).
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[!]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream
[Bug 958344] Review Request: python-extras - Useful extra bits for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958344 Matthias Runge changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mru...@redhat.com Blocks||962132 --- Comment #3 from Matthias Runge --- Can we proceed here? I need python-extras for other packages, eg. for python-pbr. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=5osz2NaNEL&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958344] Review Request: python-extras - Useful extra bits for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958344 --- Comment #4 from Matthias Runge --- Created attachment 754224 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=754224&action=edit Patch to fix the issues from the review -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=cTF3fmaS0R&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958344] Review Request: python-extras - Useful extra bits for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958344 --- Comment #5 from Matthias Runge --- for reference: SRPM: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-extras-0.0.3-2.fc19.src.rpm SPEC: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-extras.spec -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=vDdDiu6Fdw&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958344] Review Request: python-extras - Useful extra bits for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958344 Pádraig Brady changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pbr...@redhat.com Flags||needinfo?(mru...@redhat.com ||) --- Comment #6 from Pádraig Brady --- I've mentioned before that this package is daft as it boils down to a couple of lines. Matthias I don't see extras used in pbr 0.5.10? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=4lNoYno4Jh&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958344] Review Request: python-extras - Useful extra bits for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958344 --- Comment #7 from Jerry James --- (In reply to Pádraig Brady from comment #6) > I've mentioned before that this package is daft as it boils down to a couple > of lines. Daft or not, upstream ships it as a separate package, and we know of at least one package that uses it (subunit). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Aos1KQDdm4&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958344] Review Request: python-extras - Useful extra bits for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958344 Pádraig Brady changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||908842 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=bxAUSf3tC6&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958344] Review Request: python-extras - Useful extra bits for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958344 Matthias Runge changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(mru...@redhat.com | |) | --- Comment #8 from Matthias Runge --- pbr requires testrepository, which requires subunit, which uses extras. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=aPUfyC0sN9&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958344] Review Request: python-extras - Useful extra bits for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958344 --- Comment #9 from Pádraig Brady --- Well subunit had essentially a 1 line patch to avoid "extras", however I've now reverted that. This falls into the category of working hard rather than smart. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=lukoSunQ6t&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958344] Review Request: python-extras - Useful extra bits for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958344 Pádraig Brady changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||913200 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=68Kp14vyg4&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958344] Review Request: python-extras - Useful extra bits for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958344 Alan Pevec changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ape...@redhat.com, ||michel+...@sylvestre.me Flags||needinfo?(michel+fdr@sylves ||tre.me) --- Comment #10 from Alan Pevec --- (In reply to Pádraig Brady from comment #9) > This falls into the category of working hard rather than smart. Indeed, and now we need submitter and reviewer to work hard on this. Michel, please update the review or hand over to Matthias. Thanks. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=7Spr71Z0E9&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958344] Review Request: python-extras - Useful extra bits for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958344
Pádraig Brady changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||p...@draigbrady.com
Assignee|loganje...@gmail.com|p...@draigbrady.com
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags|needinfo?(michel+fdr@sylves |
|tre.me) |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #11 from Pádraig Brady ---
Matthias' update looks good, thanks!
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
Note: Using prebuilt rpms.
[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 requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
python3-extras
[x]: Package complies to the 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". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/padraig/rhat/fedora-scm/openstack/python-extras
/review-python-extras/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (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]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 6 files.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
Note: Using prebuilt packages
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[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 %doc.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[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
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: 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).
[x]: Package functions as descri
[Bug 958344] Review Request: python-extras - Useful extra bits for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958344 --- Comment #13 from Pádraig Brady --- f18 would be good too. thanks -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=pOnlcTzCdF&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958344] Review Request: python-extras - Useful extra bits for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958344 Matthias Runge changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #12 from Matthias Runge --- Michel, because it's urgent for us, I hope you don't mind, if I take this over, somehow. Of course, I'm adding you as maintainer here. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-extras Short Description: Useful extra bits for Python Owners: mrunge salimma Branches: f19 el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=0fvuBhxME7&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958344] Review Request: python-extras - Useful extra bits for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958344 --- Comment #14 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=CDCSFKHkUl&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958344] Review Request: python-extras - Useful extra bits for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958344 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? | Flags||fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=rXaSW5bCR4&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958344] Review Request: python-extras - Useful extra bits for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958344 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- python-extras-0.0.3-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-extras-0.0.3-2.el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=mFcReGXsWE&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958344] Review Request: python-extras - Useful extra bits for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958344 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=PkJHFcihQR&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958344] Review Request: python-extras - Useful extra bits for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958344 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- python-extras-0.0.3-2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-extras-0.0.3-2.fc19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=kYq0fpsJjq&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958344] Review Request: python-extras - Useful extra bits for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958344 Matthias Runge changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ | Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #17 from Matthias Runge --- Package Change Request == Package Name: python-extras New Branches: f18 Owners: mrunge pbrady salimma -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=31lguKiURW&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958344] Review Request: python-extras - Useful extra bits for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958344 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? | Flags||fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=NED9gFxnVK&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958344] Review Request: python-extras - Useful extra bits for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958344 --- Comment #18 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=bkxya5QrMk&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958344] Review Request: python-extras - Useful extra bits for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958344 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System --- python-extras-0.0.3-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=pDZ4UYmR40&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958344] Review Request: python-extras - Useful extra bits for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958344 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System --- python-extras-0.0.3-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-extras-0.0.3-2.fc18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=O1FZAZcwSt&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958344] Review Request: python-extras - Useful extra bits for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958344 --- Comment #21 from Michel Alexandre Salim --- No problem, Matthias. Apologies for the delay, was out of town. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=xjfDOPW8oX&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958344] Review Request: python-extras - Useful extra bits for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958344 --- Comment #22 from Jerry James --- I have to protest the way I was treated. I was the reviewer. I was not out of town or inactive. I was merely waiting for the submitter's next move. There was no reason to summarily eject me as reviewer with no notice and no apology. We were nowhere even close to the one month period specified by https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews. I am glad the package is now in Fedora, but I think I deserved better than this. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=xOpmas08BG&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958344] Review Request: python-extras - Useful extra bits for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958344 --- Comment #23 from Pádraig Brady --- Sorry Jerry. I really didn't want you to offend you in any way. It's just that this package was blocking a bunch of stuff and I wanted to be sure it was submitted. The couple of days I think we gained was important IMHO. Please feel free to hit me up for review requests/swaps or whatever... thanks, Pádraig. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=BRCmQ1ZmZd&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
