Hey!
it took a bit longer than both of us expected but fortunately we've
finished these ones. Could you please do me a favor and review any of
these ones?
* https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2303752 erlang-rebar3-riak_pb_msgcodegen
- A riak_pb message compiler for rebar3 (a dependency for Riak NoSQL
dat
Hello,
I have three simple Fortran packages for review:
mstore
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2310390
multicharge
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2310391
dftd4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2310392
which are straightforward meson builds. multicharge depe
Hmm it looks like I really do need to update everything to LTS 22 to
achieve the pandoc rebase properly (since it needs newer Haskell tls).
Here's one more package review:
toml-parser: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2266093
needed by the typst library.
Jens
--
___
On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 8:22 AM Jens-Ulrik Petersen wrote:
>
> Another day, another needed package (this would also be part of the postponed
> Stackage LTS 22 change):
> I forgot that pandoc > 3.1.3 had moved to the new crypton stack that replaces
> cryptonite:
>
> crypton: https://bugzilla.redh
Another day, another needed package (this would also be part of the
postponed Stackage LTS 22 change):
I forgot that pandoc > 3.1.3 had moved to the new crypton stack that
replaces cryptonite:
crypton: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2266044
Next would be crypton-x509...
Is it better
People,
While we are on this topic - are there any Pandoc gurus here? - I posted
a note on the Pandoc site but haven't had any responses yet . .
Thanks,
Phil.
On 2024-02-23 19:03, Jens-Ulrik Petersen wrote:
(changed the subject)
On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 9:14 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
(changed the subject)
On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 9:14 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <
zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 02:06:22PM +0800, Jens-Ulrik Petersen wrote:
> > I realised a second open package review is
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2068718 (isocline)
>
Hi, I would really like these two packages added to F38:
NEW ghc-constraints: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2162872
NEW ghc-base64: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2163472
both are needed by newer pandoc and a number of other packages.
Can anyone please help review them
Hi all.
I have two reviews in pending [1][2]; they're new packages needed by
next COPASI [3] release. If someone checks them, i can review other
software in exchange.
[1] google-cpu_features, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933412
[2] nativejit, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_b
Hi all.
I have two new packages ready for the review:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808573
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808571
I'm available to review other packages in return.
--
---
Antonio Trande
Fedora Project
mailto 'sagitter at fedoraproject dot org'
GPG ke
Hi,
golang-github-anacrolix-envpprof is done
(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684936)
Is there a package which is blocking all others ? I have some time to do
review
Didier.
Le 04/03/2019 à 02:05, Robert-André Mauchin a écrit :
> Hello,
>
> I have several Go packages in need of a r
I have several Go packages in need of a review for the latest Rclone version.
I'm available for any review in exchange.
- golang-github-anacrolix-dms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684956
I would review it, but i am not in the packager group 8-(
All i can offer is a unofficial
Hello,
I have several Go packages in need of a review for the latest Rclone version.
I'm available for any review in exchange.
- golang-github-anacrolix-dms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684956
- golang-github-anacrolix-ffprobe
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?
On Wed, 2018-10-24 at 19:49 +0200, Robert-André Mauchin wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'd like some help for a couple of package reviews:
>
> Review Request: rclone-browser - Simple cross platform GUI for
> rclone
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1642570
I
Hello,
I'd like some help for a couple of package reviews:
Review Request: rclone-browser - Simple cross platform GUI for rclone
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1642570
Review Request: strawberry - An audio player and music collection organizer
https://bugzilla.redha
Hi,
I have two packages up for review that could use some attention please:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1411875
and
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1411947
Thanks,
--
Kaleb
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedorapr
:
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2016 13:18:25 -
> "Raphael Groner" wrote:
>
> > Can that information be used to award badges? There's an old open
> > issue to implement badges for doing package reviews. Maybe get in
> > contact with the badges team.
> > https://f
On Mon, 11 Jul 2016 13:18:25 -
"Raphael Groner" wrote:
> Can that information be used to award badges? There's an old open
> issue to implement badges for doing package reviews. Maybe get in
> contact with the badges team.
> https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-badges
On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 08:28:01 +0530
Parag Nemade wrote:
> After long time I see this script results on devel list. Last few
> maintainers have tried to update this script but I think whenever
> bugzilla gets updated this script got broken.
> But I really don't see any need to send these weekly res
issue
> to implement badges for doing package reviews. Maybe get in contact with
> the badges team.
> >> https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-badges/ticket/101
> >
> > whoa! would be happy to get some number of badges for this ;)
>
> But this will not be a perfect thing. so
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 7:05 PM, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Raphael Groner
> wrote:
>> Can that information be used to award badges? There's an old open issue to
>> implement badges for doing package reviews. Maybe get in contact w
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> For me would be better some page with stats/links to weekly status,
> monthly status, yearly status and some nice graphics ;)
>
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Michal Novotny wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> as a new Fedora Infrastructure app
On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Raphael Groner
wrote:
> Can that information be used to award badges? There's an old open issue to
> implement badges for doing package reviews. Maybe get in contact with the
> badges team.
> https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-badges/ticket/101
On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Raphael Groner
wrote:
> Can that information be used to award badges? There's an old open issue to
> implement badges for doing package reviews. Maybe get in contact with the
> badges team.
> https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-badges/ticket/10
Can that information be used to award badges? There's an old open issue to
implement badges for doing package reviews. Maybe get in contact with the
badges team.
https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-badges/ticket/101
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraprojec
For me would be better some page with stats/links to weekly status,
monthly status, yearly status and some nice graphics ;)
On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Michal Novotny wrote:
> Hello,
>
> as a new Fedora Infrastructure apprentice, I am currently working on this
> first infrastructure ticket
On 07/11/2016 11:18 AM, Michal Novotny wrote:
> Hello,
>
> as a new Fedora Infrastructure apprentice, I am currently working on
> this first infrastructure ticket
> https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/3748.
>
> Basically, I updated an old script that collects stats on packages
>
Hello,
as a new Fedora Infrastructure apprentice, I am currently working on this
first infrastructure ticket
https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/3748.
Basically, I updated an old script that collects stats on packages reviews
present on Bugzilla. I wonder if this information cou
Hello,
Mediawiki was bundling PHP libraries. The latest stable release is attempting to
un-bundle them by clearly splitting them out into a "vendor" sub-directory.
I have created package reviews for these libraries so they do not have to be
bundled. I will work with swapping re
Hi
On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 12:09 PM, Rakesh Pandit wrote:
>
>
> Share the ticket once you have opened it.
>
https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/3748
Rahul
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 13 April 2013 09:14, Ankur Sinha wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-04-12 at 17:20 -0400, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> Yeah. Part of the reason I suggested this to you long back was that
>> it keeps the idea of reviews as part of the conversation for this list
>> but also because it was a nod of recognition for
On 13 April 2013 12:37, Christopher Meng wrote:
> Just followed the script link and got cgit error.
>
Hi,
The link would be:
https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/triage.git/tree/scripts/bzReviewReport.py
Regards,
--
Rakesh Pandit
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rakesh
freedom, friends, feature
Just followed the script link and got cgit error.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Sat, 2013-04-13 at 16:14 +1000, Ankur Sinha wrote:
> I'll file a ticket with the infra team.
Ticket filed:
https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/3748
--
Thanks,
Warm regards,
Ankur: "FranciscoD"
Please only print if necessary.
Looking to contribute to Fedora? Look here:
On Fri, 2013-04-12 at 17:20 -0400, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Yeah. Part of the reason I suggested this to you long back was that
> it keeps the idea of reviews as part of the conversation for this list
> but also because it was a nod of recognition for the reviewers who
> were often doing grunt work
Hi
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Rakesh Pandit wrote:
>
> [..]
> > Couldn't infrastructure team just automate this?
> >
> [..]
>
> If infrastructure team agrees to do it, script will need some adjustment.
>
Yeah. Part of the reason I suggested this to you long back was that it
keeps the id
On 12 April 2013 20:55, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Rakesh Pandit wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> During 2010-2011, I used to generate 15 day report for package reviews
>> and post it[1]. There were yearly report as well[2].
>>
>>
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Rakesh Pandit wrote:
> Hi,
>
> During 2010-2011, I used to generate 15 day report for package reviews
> and post it[1]. There were yearly report as well[2].
>
> In case anyone is interested in taking it up again, feel free to do
> so. S
Hi,
During 2010-2011, I used to generate 15 day report for package reviews
and post it[1]. There were yearly report as well[2].
In case anyone is interested in taking it up again, feel free to do
so. Script is available at:
https://fedorahosted.org/triage/browser/scripts/bzReviewReport.py
In
On 2012-12-30 11:42, Mamoru TASAKA wrote:
Ken Dreyer wrote, at 12/30/2012 01:01 AM +9:00:
I noticed our package review process doesn't explicitly say "After you
make an update to the package, bump the 'Release' number and post a
new link each time." This is a popular convention, but it doesn't s
On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 19:42:02 +0900, Mamoru TASAKA wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:FrequentlyMadeMistakes
Could somebody with "Edit" access for this page please add it to
category PackageMaintainers? Then it would appear on the main page
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package
Ken Dreyer wrote, at 12/30/2012 01:01 AM +9:00:
I noticed our package review process doesn't explicitly say "After you
make an update to the package, bump the 'Release' number and post a
new link each time." This is a popular convention, but it doesn't seem
to be formally documented.
https://fed
On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 20:20:25 +0100, Alec Leamas wrote:
> On 2012-12-29 19:45, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 18:23:35 +, Jamie Nguyen wrote:
> >
> >> I've seen on a few occasions reviewers mention that they can't tell what
> >> has changed in the spec since the previous versio
On 2012-12-29 19:45, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 18:23:35 +, Jamie Nguyen wrote:
I've seen on a few occasions reviewers mention that they can't tell what
has changed in the spec since the previous version, as the new packager
has overwritten the previous spec.
If the packag
On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 18:23:35 +, Jamie Nguyen wrote:
> I've seen on a few occasions reviewers mention that they can't tell what
> has changed in the spec since the previous version, as the new packager
> has overwritten the previous spec.
If the packager does that, it makes the rpmdev-diff c
Alec Leamas:
> On 2012-12-29 17:01, Ken Dreyer wrote:
>> I noticed our package review process doesn't explicitly say "After you
>> make an update to the package, bump the 'Release' number and post a
>> new link each time." This is a popular convention, but it doesn't seem
>> to be formally document
On 2012-12-29 17:01, Ken Dreyer wrote:
I noticed our package review process doesn't explicitly say "After you
make an update to the package, bump the 'Release' number and post a
new link each time." This is a popular convention, but it doesn't seem
to be formally documented.
https://fedoraprojec
I noticed our package review process doesn't explicitly say "After you
make an update to the package, bump the 'Release' number and post a
new link each time." This is a popular convention, but it doesn't seem
to be formally documented.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process
Should
Hello All!
is there anyone interested in exchanging reviews? I'm willing to trade
these ones:
* https://bugzilla.redhat.com/854458 - erlang-riak_pb - Riak Protocol
Buffers Messages (one of the requirements for the next 1.2.0 version
of Riak)
* https://bugzilla.redhat.com/823458 - erlang-erlsha2 -
On 2011-12-19 10:32, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote:
> I can tell you right now that cornercases will never be caught with
> tools like this. Licensecheck only looks at headers/comments, whereas
> licensing depends on many things and can be quite confusing. I am sure
> that rpmdevtools maintainers wou
Excerpts from Brendan Jones's message of Fri Dec 16 00:32:24 +0100 2011:
> On 12/15/2011 09:57 PM, Brendan Jones wrote:
> > On 11/21/2011 02:14 PM, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote:
> >> Hello fellow devs,
> >>
> >> I am sure quite a few of you have done some reviews and thought "Hey,
> >> a,b,c and d co
On 16.12.2011 00:32, Brendan Jones wrote:
Not sure if this is something which should be part of this package or
another entirely?
Sure, we will reinvent the wheel yet again (see
http://www.fossology.org/ ... yes it would probably require some
fedora-wide server, or maybe not, I don't know eno
On 12/15/2011 09:57 PM, Brendan Jones wrote:
On 11/21/2011 02:14 PM, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote:
Hello fellow devs,
I am sure quite a few of you have done some reviews and thought "Hey,
a,b,c and d could be automated. For E I could use some more
information that can be automatically gathered".
On 11/21/2011 02:14 PM, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote:
Hello fellow devs,
I am sure quite a few of you have done some reviews and thought "Hey,
a,b,c and d could be automated. For E I could use some more
information that can be automatically gathered". Some of you even
wrote your own tools to do so
On Mon, 2011-12-05 at 17:06 +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> On 11/21/2011 02:14 PM, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote:
> >- Any ideas, bugreports etc will be much appreciated
>
> I would be very interested in feature, which instead of mock, will run
> Koji scratch build and then will download resulti
On 11/21/2011 02:14 PM, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote:
>- Any ideas, bugreports etc will be much appreciated
I would be very interested in feature, which instead of mock, will run
Koji scratch build and then will download resulting packages from Koji.
--
Miroslav Suchy
Red Hat Satellite Engine
Well there may be a chance this tool may eventually become officially
adopted by QA after it gets tested and used long enough to consider it
safe/stable.
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 7:48 AM, Stanislav Ochotnicky <
sochotni...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Excerpts from "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"'s message of Mon
Excerpts from "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"'s message of Mon Nov 21 14:25:22 +0100
2011:
> > [1] https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview
> > [2] https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/browser/api/README
>
> Is this not something that releng/autoqa could use as well as in run
> against all already existing
be automated. For E I could use some more
> > information that can be automatically gathered". Some of you even
> > wrote your own tools to do some of these things.
> >
> > Yet there is no unified tool, nor format for package reviews. There
> > are more reasons, but I guess b
you even
> wrote your own tools to do some of these things.
>
> Yet there is no unified tool, nor format for package reviews. There
> are more reasons, but I guess biggest one is there are just too many
> guidelines and there is probably no one who knows all of them. So few
> of us g
ified tool, nor format for package reviews. There
are more reasons, but I guess biggest one is there are just too many
guidelines and there is probably no one who knows all of them. So few
of us got together and hopefully created something that can be used by
everyone.
fedora-review[1] is now in updat
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 5:55 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
> Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>>> "SO" == Stanislav Ochotnicky writes:
>>>
>>
>> SO> I believe you forgot to set whenisgood to use timezones :-)
>>
>> My understanding is that you have to log in in order to set your
>> timezone, or that c
Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>> "SO" == Stanislav Ochotnicky writes:
>>
>
> SO> I believe you forgot to set whenisgood to use timezones :-)
>
> My understanding is that you have to log in in order to set your
> timezone, or that choosing a timezone was something the responder h
> "SO" == Stanislav Ochotnicky writes:
SO> I believe you forgot to set whenisgood to use timezones :-)
My understanding is that you have to log in in order to set your
timezone, or that choosing a timezone was something the responder had to
do. When I created the form, "Use timezones" was c
Excerpts from Jason L Tibbitts III's message of Thu Jul 28 02:03:21 +0200 2011:
> So, that was pretty good response; only one reply here, but several
> names were added to the wiki page. There seem to be enough people
> interested to begin moving forward.
Yeah, it would be nice to make our lives
So, that was pretty good response; only one reply here, but several
names were added to the wiki page. There seem to be enough people
interested to begin moving forward.
I can't think of a better place for discussion than this list, so I'll
just go ahead:
Could someone volunteer to co-chair this
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 01:01:36 -0500
Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> For a while now I've wanted to get some sort of package review SIG
> going. The package review process hasn't really evolved much since it
> was instituted way back when, and now it (and the portion of the
> sponsorship process it o
For a while now I've wanted to get some sort of package review SIG
going. The package review process hasn't really evolved much since it
was instituted way back when, and now it (and the portion of the
sponsorship process it overlaps) has become a major bottleneck in one of
the main ways of gettin
On 06/07/2011 12:29 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 03:12:19PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Tom Callaway wrote:
>>> pyrit:
>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691894
>>
>> Oh great, because a tool to parasite wireless connections which the
>> owners went out of
On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 03:12:19PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Tom Callaway wrote:
> > pyrit:
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691894
>
> Oh great, because a tool to parasite wireless connections which the
> owners went out of the way to secure with the best available protocol is
On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 03:12:19PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Tom Callaway wrote:
> > pyrit:
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691894
>
> Oh great, because a tool to parasite wireless connections which the
> owners went out of the way to secure with the best available protocol is
Tom Callaway wrote:
> pyrit:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691894
Oh great, because a tool to parasite wireless connections which the
owners went out of the way to secure with the best available protocol is
EXACTLY what we need…
Use of this tool is probably against the law in mo
On 2011-06-06 11:17, Tom Callaway wrote:
> As usual, I will swap reviews or favors (within limits) for reviews on
> some new packages for me:
>
> mono-reflection:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=711181
>
> pyrit:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691894
>
> gambas3:
> http
As usual, I will swap reviews or favors (within limits) for reviews on
some new packages for me:
mono-reflection:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=711181
pyrit:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691894
gambas3:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710203
As soon as I
> "GH" == Garrett Holmstrom writes:
GH> How is this any different, given that process-git-requests creates a
GH> rawhide branch without regard to whether one asks for it or not?
I'm catching up with mail after the weekend and noticed this unusually
pointed bit of misinformation which bears c
On 4/29/2011 9:12, Jesse Keating wrote:
> It is somewhat difficult, and odd, to create a git repo that does not
> have a master branch. It would be a little more odd to potentially at
> some point in the future create the master branch for a package should
> it find a home within Fedora.
As you s
On 4/29/11 8:54 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>>> > > How is this any different, given that process-git-requests creates a
>>> > > rawhide branch without regard to whether one asks for it or not?
>> >
>> > I think the idea is that it allows people who wish to see reviews that
>> > are EPEL only.
Kevin Fenzi (ke...@scrye.com) said:
> > On 4/28/2011 13:25, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > > EPEL now has a 'Package Review' component in bugzilla. If you've
> > > got an EPEL-only package you'd like to get reviewed, feel free to
> > > file it there.
> >
> > How is this any different, given that proc
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 22:28:15 -0700
Garrett Holmstrom wrote:
> On 4/28/2011 13:25, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > EPEL now has a 'Package Review' component in bugzilla. If you've
> > got an EPEL-only package you'd like to get reviewed, feel free to
> > file it there.
>
> How is this any different, gi
On 4/28/2011 13:25, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> EPEL now has a 'Package Review' component in bugzilla. If you've got an
> EPEL-only package you'd like to get reviewed, feel free to file it there.
How is this any different, given that process-git-requests creates a
rawhide branch without regard to wh
Just as a FYI:
EPEL now has a 'Package Review' component in bugzilla. If you've got an
EPEL-only package you'd like to get reviewed, feel free to file it there.
Bill
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
gudev-sharp: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639346
gkeyfile-sharp: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639348
gio-sharp: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639350
gtk-sharp-beans: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639351
Thanks!
Nathaniel
--
devel mailing
82 matches
Mail list logo