[Bug 988997] Review Request: bfgminer - A BitCoin miner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988997 Paul Wouters changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(pwouters@redhat.c | |om) | --- Comment #27 from Paul Wouters --- I have orphaned this package - someone else is free to pick it up again. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 988997] Review Request: bfgminer - A BitCoin miner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988997 --- Comment #26 from luke-jr+redhatb...@utopios.org --- Is there any way to get this updated to a supported branch? 3.2.x and 3.5.x are currently receiving backports, but 3.3.0 is very dead by now. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 988997] Review Request: bfgminer - A BitCoin miner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988997 Peter Lemenkov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2013-12-19 10:04:08 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 988997] Review Request: bfgminer - A BitCoin miner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988997 --- Comment #25 from zombie214 --- The aclocal-1.13 not found (see comment 24) have been fixed by Rex Dieters http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/bfgminer.git/commit/?id=43b828eb84f6e94e1ee2022475480c2cb96b356f -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 988997] Review Request: bfgminer - A BitCoin miner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988997 zombie214 changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nix...@caraudio.com --- Comment #24 from zombie214 --- Paul Wouters, Using our package on F19/20 I see the following error in the build log, stemming from line 81 in file 'missing' /builddir/build/BUILD/bfgminer-3.3.0/missing aclocal-1.13 -I m4 /builddir/build/BUILD/bfgminer-3.3.0/missing: line 81: aclocal-1.13: command not found WARNING: 'aclocal-1.13' is missing on your system. For some strange reason (path during build maybe?) aclocal-1.13 is not found, though I have confirmed that aclocal-1.13 is indeed on my system (F20). Also, if you google for "aclocal-1.13 line 81 missing" you will dozens of builds that fail right at this point - missing seems to be flawed. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 988997] Review Request: bfgminer - A BitCoin miner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988997 Peter Lemenkov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pwout...@redhat.com Flags||needinfo?(pwouters@redhat.c ||om) --- Comment #23 from Peter Lemenkov --- Ping, Paul! How're things going? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 988997] Review Request: bfgminer - A BitCoin miner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988997 --- Comment #22 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 988997] Review Request: bfgminer - A BitCoin miner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988997 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 988997] Review Request: bfgminer - A BitCoin miner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988997 --- Comment #21 from luke-jr+redhatb...@utopios.org --- Regarding the second, setgroups is not a POSIX standard function, so will need configure checks at least. It also seems less preferable than initgroups. Both of these require _BSD_SOURCE and/or -lbsd-compat on some platforms. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 988997] Review Request: bfgminer - A BitCoin miner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988997 --- Comment #20 from luke-jr+redhatb...@utopios.org --- Regarding the first patch, it breaks running from the build directory... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 988997] Review Request: bfgminer - A BitCoin miner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988997 --- Comment #19 from luke-jr+redhatb...@utopios.org --- The firmware blobs are only needed for specific devices; I doubt most users would want them to be installed by default/requirement. README.FPGA should have links to the firmware authors' websites with the binaries. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 988997] Review Request: bfgminer - A BitCoin miner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988997 --- Comment #18 from Paul Wouters --- oops. I guess we all missed upstream had released new versions :) I've packaged it up. Spec URL: ftp://ftp.nohats.ca/bfgminer/bfgminer.spec SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.nohats.ca/bfgminer/bfgminer-3.3.0-1.fc19.src.rpm There are two patches now. One for rpath and one for the chdir+setgroups calls. Luke: you can find the two patches here: ftp://ftp.nohats.ca/bfgminer/bfgminer-3.3.0-configure.patch ftp://ftp.nohats.ca/bfgminer/bfgminer-3.3.0-privs.patch But I also notice the bitstreams firmware blobs are no longer shipped. While I see the source for them, I'm unfamiliar with how to compile those. I guess I can package it in this package as blobs, like it was. Or make a separate package and make this package depend on it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 988997] Review Request: bfgminer - A BitCoin miner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988997 --- Comment #17 from luke-jr+redhatb...@utopios.org --- Why 3.1.3? That's relatively ancient, has known bugs, and unsupported.. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 988997] Review Request: bfgminer - A BitCoin miner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988997 Paul Wouters changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #16 from Paul Wouters --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: bfgminer Short Description: A BitCoin miner Owners: pwouters Branches: f19 f20 el6 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 988997] Review Request: bfgminer - A BitCoin miner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988997 --- Comment #15 from Paul Wouters --- I removed the rpath, although unfortunately I had to resort to the chrpath method as removng in from Makefile.in weirdly changes the .la files to be .lai and fail and I couldn't figure out why. Spec URL: ftp://ftp.nohats.ca/bfgminer/bfgminer.spec SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.nohats.ca/bfgminer/bfgminer-3.1.3-3.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 988997] Review Request: bfgminer - A BitCoin miner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988997 --- Comment #14 from luke-jr+redhatb...@utopios.org --- (In reply to Paul Wouters from comment #11) > https://gitorious.org/bitcoin/libblkmaker not having releases, only tags. Tags are releases. But this may be irrelevant considering Peter's comment that it does not need to be split. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 988997] Review Request: bfgminer - A BitCoin miner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988997 --- Comment #13 from Christopher Meng --- NOTE: ADD "Provides: bundled(gnulib)" in your spec. Ref: bug #821770 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 988997] Review Request: bfgminer - A BitCoin miner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988997 Peter Lemenkov changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #12 from Peter Lemenkov --- Lu(In reply to luke-jr+redhatbugs from comment #9) > ADL/ is, as already mentioned, custom ADL-compatible headers written by > myself and provided under a MIT license. > > CL/ is the official OpenCL 1.0 headers. Newer headers have created > compatibility issues on some platforms. If you want to use system headers, I > suggest having the build rm the directory and replace it with a symlink. > > lib/ is gnulib snippets, which are unfortunately not designed such that they > can be shared. I'd be glad to make this a proper dependency if you can get > gnulib to make that possible. > > libblkmaker/ can be de-bundled to another package, if the maintainers want. > configure accepts --with-system-libblkmaker for such a case. > > bfgminer-devel is I presume only libblkmaker headers right now. BFGMiner > itself does not have headers or other devel files, but does have a HACKING > documentation file for driver development. Thanks for the explanation, Luke! As Christopher mentioned above, gnulib is not an issue at all. As for libblkmaker - I don't see unbundling it as a requirement since it's not available in Fedora as a standalone package right now. Perhaps with time when someone packages it we'll reconsider libblkmaker situation. OK, Paul, I don't see any other issues. I'd like to remind you to add "Provides: bundled(gnulib)" before uploading to git, as documented here: * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries#Packages_granted_exceptions As I said I don't see any other issues. so this package is APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 988997] Review Request: bfgminer - A BitCoin miner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988997 --- Comment #11 from Paul Wouters --- Spec URL: ftp://ftp.nohats.ca/bfgminer/bfgminer.spec SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.nohats.ca/bfgminer/bfgminer-3.1.3-2.fc19.src.rpm Changelog: * Mon Oct 21 2013 Paul Wouters - 3.1.3-2 - Fixed version number in changelog - Removed accidental install of api-example.o - Run ldconfig in post and postun - Make devel depend on arch This fixes all issues but the rpath issue with libblkmaker. I'm planning to submit a package review for that package separately. That might take a few days, while I figure out what to do with https://gitorious.org/bitcoin/libblkmaker not having releases, only tags. So until that package is reviewed and accepted, I'll wait with bfgminer. Thanks everyone -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 988997] Review Request: bfgminer - A BitCoin miner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988997 --- Comment #10 from Christopher Meng --- gnulib can be bundled, see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 988997] Review Request: bfgminer - A BitCoin miner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988997 luke-jr+redhatb...@utopios.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||luke-jr+redhatbugs@utopios. ||org --- Comment #9 from luke-jr+redhatb...@utopios.org --- ADL/ is, as already mentioned, custom ADL-compatible headers written by myself and provided under a MIT license. CL/ is the official OpenCL 1.0 headers. Newer headers have created compatibility issues on some platforms. If you want to use system headers, I suggest having the build rm the directory and replace it with a symlink. lib/ is gnulib snippets, which are unfortunately not designed such that they can be shared. I'd be glad to make this a proper dependency if you can get gnulib to make that possible. libblkmaker/ can be de-bundled to another package, if the maintainers want. configure accepts --with-system-libblkmaker for such a case. bfgminer-devel is I presume only libblkmaker headers right now. BFGMiner itself does not have headers or other devel files, but does have a HACKING documentation file for driver development. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 988997] Review Request: bfgminer - A BitCoin miner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988997 --- Comment #8 from Peter Lemenkov --- (In reply to Warren Togami from comment #7) > Please verify the license of the ADL files. Are they really open source? Yes, they are. They made by the author of bfgminer, and licensed under MIT. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 988997] Review Request: bfgminer - A BitCoin miner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988997 Warren Togami changed: What|Removed |Added CC||wtog...@gmail.com --- Comment #7 from Warren Togami --- Please verify the license of the ADL files. Are they really open source? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 988997] Review Request: bfgminer - A BitCoin miner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988997
Peter Lemenkov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lemen...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #6 from Peter Lemenkov ---
(In reply to Scott Schmit from comment #5)
> Not saying "open the floodgates!" but ecc is no longer banned outright: bug
> 319901. CC'ing Tom.
As I said already this application doesn't use ECC algorithms, and has nothing
to do with OpenSSL. Bitcoin mining is different from actual bitcoin usage.
Mining is just sha256 generation and comparison.
Just to stop further confusing I'm going to REVIEW this:
Koji scratchbuild for F-19 (just because building for F-19 is tenfold faster
than for branches with ARM enabled)
* http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6062348
Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable
- rpmlint is NOT silent
work ~/Desktop: rpmlint bfgminer-*
bfgminer.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti
bfgminer.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fanspeed -> fan speed,
fan-speed, fans peed
bfgminer.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bitcoin -> bit coin,
bit-coin, bitchiness
^^^ False positives. Not a blocker.
bfgminer.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog
^^^ Please fix that by adding date and version here before uploading to a git
repository. Not a blocker.
bfgminer.src:50: W: macro-in-comment %dir
bfgminer.src:50: W: macro-in-comment %{_datadir}
bfgminer.src:56: W: macro-in-comment %{_mandir}
bfgminer.src:56: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
^^^ Either remove commented lines or escape them with additional percent sign.
Not a blocker.
bfgminer.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti
bfgminer.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fanspeed -> fan speed,
fan-speed, fans peed
bfgminer.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bitcoin -> bit coin,
bit-coin, bitchiness
^^^ Likewise, false positives. Not a blocker.
bfgminer.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog
^^^ Likewise, fix that by adding date and version here before uploading to a
git repository. Not a blocker.
bfgminer.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share
/usr/share/doc/bfgminer-3.1.3/api-example.o
^^^ Please remove this. That's a blocker.
bfgminer.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/bfgminer
['$ORIGIN/libblkmaker/.libs']
^^^ rpath issue. Please fix it. That's a blocker.
bfgminer.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin
/usr/lib64/libblkmaker_jansson-0.1.so.0.4.0
bfgminer.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun
/usr/lib64/libblkmaker_jansson-0.1.so.0.4.0
bfgminer.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin
/usr/lib64/libblkmaker-0.1.so.0.4.0
bfgminer.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun
/usr/lib64/libblkmaker-0.1.so.0.4.0
^^^ Please, call ldconfig where necessary. That's a blocker.
bfgminer.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bitforce-firmware-flash
bfgminer.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bfgminer
bfgminer.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bfgminer-rpc
^^^ Sad truth. These binaries just doesn't have a corresponding man-page. Not a
blocker.
bfgminer-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog
bfgminer-devel.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog
^^^ Fix that by adding date and version here before uploading to a git
repository. Not a blocker.
bfgminer-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
^^^ That was intended - this sub-package doesn't have any docs.
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 18 warnings.
work ~/Desktop:
+ The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
- The package DOESN'T fully conform to the Packaging Guidelines. See my notes
above.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (GPLv3
exactly).
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included
in %doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture. See koji link above.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
- The package stores shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's
default paths, so it MUST call ldconfig in %post and %postun. See my notes
regarding ldconfig above.
+/- The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. Well, to be honest
it does contains some sources from the libraries unknown to me within the ADL,
CL, lib directories which *should* be unbundled but I'm not insisting on doing
it right now. Howe
[Bug 988997] Review Request: bfgminer - A BitCoin miner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988997 Scott Schmit changed: What|Removed |Added CC||i.g...@comcast.net, ||tcall...@redhat.com --- Comment #5 from Scott Schmit --- Not saying "open the floodgates!" but ecc is no longer banned outright: bug 319901. CC'ing Tom. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 988997] Review Request: bfgminer - A BitCoin miner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988997 --- Comment #4 from Paul Wouters --- I had not thought about the ECC bits. I will have to investigate if this application is using ECC or not. A quick grep does not show anything but we need to ensure there is no ECC in use here. -- 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=Asah4Z8FmF&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 988997] Review Request: bfgminer - A BitCoin miner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988997 --- Comment #3 from Peter Lemenkov --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #2) > Well, I'm not sure if thing related to bitcoin is approved now. It was never disapproved. ECC on the other hand is still banned, -- 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=HWMnUvbuR8&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 988997] Review Request: bfgminer - A BitCoin miner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988997 --- Comment #2 from Christopher Meng --- Well, I'm not sure if thing related to bitcoin is approved now. -- 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=7a9NHoIpZj&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 988997] Review Request: bfgminer - A BitCoin miner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988997 Peter Lemenkov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lemen...@gmail.com Blocks|182235 (FE-Legal) | --- Comment #1 from Peter Lemenkov --- Why blocking FE-LEGAL? I don't see any specific issues within the code - no problematic licensing, or Elliptic Curve Crypto usage. Actually bitcoin mining, contrary to bitcoin *usage*, doesn't involves any complex algorithms - it's just a sha256 calculation and comparison, so this shouldn't concern anyone. Please elaborate your concerns before blindly trigger FE-LEGAL. Meanwhile I'm going to unblock it. -- 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=3APV30I2nD&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 988997] Review Request: bfgminer - A BitCoin miner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988997 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cicku...@gmail.com Blocks||182235 (FE-Legal) -- 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=T1HyvUeBE9&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
