On 3/22/22 07:18, Miro Hrončok wrote:
Anybody available to review this?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2066755
Happy to review a similar package or a Python package in return.
I'm on the way! 🏃🏻♂️
--
Major Hayden
OpenPGP_0x737051E0C1011FB1.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
OpenPGP_signat
Anybody available to review this?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2066755
Happy to review a similar package or a Python package in return.
Thanks,
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.or
Hi Fedora developers,
I have the below OpenOSC package review request for Fedora:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1812961
I wonder if somebody can help me with the package review to get it into Fedora.
Also if somebody can sponsor me, it would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks
Can someone review this package for me? This should be fairly
straightforward.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1752298
Thanks,
Mukundan.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproj
On Tue, 4 Apr 2017 14:48:53 +0200, Tarjei Knapstad wrote:
> I would like to revive a stalled Package Review request created by
> someone else, but I am unsure how to proceed. I've commented on the
> request and added an updated SPEC and SRPM, but I'm not sure how to
> proce
Le 04/04/2017 à 14:48, Tarjei Knapstad a écrit :
> I would like to revive a stalled Package Review request created by
> someone else, but I am unsure how to proceed. I've commented on the
> request and added an updated SPEC and SRPM, but I'm not sure how to
> proceed from her
I would like to revive a stalled Package Review request created by
someone else, but I am unsure how to proceed. I've commented on the
request and added an updated SPEC and SRPM, but I'm not sure how to
proceed from here. Should I change the blocker from FE-DEADREVIEW to
FE-NEEDSPONSOR
All,
I have submitted a package review request for xfce4-calculator-plugin.
It should be a fairly straightforward review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1326151
I am, of course, open for a review swap.
Thanks,
Mukundan.
--
GPG Key - E5C8BC67
---
signature.asc
On 03/29/2016 11:13 AM, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On 27 March 2016 at 05:55, gil wrote:
>> can you take this for me https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1316195
>
> If you're not getting many replies it's because gmail is auto-marking
> all your emails as spam: "Why is this message in Spam?
On 27 March 2016 at 05:55, gil wrote:
> can you take this for me https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1316195
If you're not getting many replies it's because gmail is auto-marking
all your emails as spam: "Why is this message in Spam? It has a from
address in libero.it but has failed liber
On 03/27/2016 12:55 AM, gil wrote:
> hi
> can you take this for me
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1316195 ?
> thanks in advance
> .g
>
Taken.
Thanks.
Mukundan.
--
GPG Key - E5C8BC67
---
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@li
hi
can you take this for me
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1316195 ?
thanks in advance
.g
Il 27/03/2016 05:58, Mukundan Ragavan ha scritto:
Hello all,
I have a compat package that I would like to get reviewed.
Here is the link to the review -
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_b
Hello all,
I have a compat package that I would like to get reviewed.
Here is the link to the review -
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321440
This is a compat package for SuperLU which I updated to v5.1 today. Some
of the packages that depend on SuperLU has version specific requ
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Adam Williamson
wrote:
> Hi folks! As part of the efforts to integrate openQA testing for Fedora
> I've been working to get the packages in the official repositories (for
> now the Fedora deployments are pulling openqa itself from a COPR).
> We've now got all the de
Hi folks! As part of the efforts to integrate openQA testing for Fedora
I've been working to get the packages in the official repositories (for
now the Fedora deployments are pulling openqa itself from a COPR).
We've now got all the dependencies and os-autoinst (the test runner)
packaged, and I've
Hi Christiopher,
Thank you for your reply.
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 12:40 AM, Christopher Meng
wrote:
>
>> I think you should do a self introduction here first per guideline for
> newcomers.
>
Done, thank you for reminding.
>
> PS last year I gave a try on docx, its functionality was still patchy
>
>
> I think you should do a self introduction here first per guideline for
newcomers.
PS last year I gave a try on docx, its functionality was still patchy at
best.
--
Yours sincerely,
Christopher Meng
http://cicku.me
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedora
Hi all,
This is my first package and I need a sponsor and a reviewer.
Could someone do a review for my first package :
python-docx https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1194576
And if someone could sponsor me aswell.I can also do some unofficial
reviews.
Thanks,
Kushal
--
devel mailing l
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi all,
Could someone please review a package I submitted today?
xfce4-pulseaudio-plugin -->
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197520
I would, of course, be willing to do a review in exchange.
Thanks,
Mukundan.
- --
GPG key: 00E8658
Hi,
I have been using Fedora since Fedora Core 1 release. However, today I
decided to stop "lurking" and instead do something useful.
So, I have packaged "pudb" which is a full-screen console-based Python
debugger. I would appreciate a review so that I (and others) can do "yum
install python-pudb
Hello everyone
After some massiv rethoughts and rework of my previous Script-Collection
(which used remote properitary files), i renamed it to Script-Tools, and
reduced its output to stdout.
It is considred alpha status.
The coding follows now a strict order to enable manpage generation via
scri
On 03/06/2012 09:07 PM, Paul Howarth wrote:
On 03/06/2012 03:11 AM, Vijay N. Majagaonkar wrote:
Please, no! %{__cp} hugely decreases readability and if the
situation happens that mkdir and cp are not in the $PATH we will
have much bigger problems than running sed on all .spec files.
I am sorr
On 03/06/2012 03:11 AM, Vijay N. Majagaonkar wrote:
Please, no! %{__cp} hugely decreases readability and if the
situation happens that mkdir and cp are not in the $PATH we will
have much bigger problems than running sed on all .spec files.
I am sorry but this will hit even if you d
> Please, no! %{__cp} hugely decreases readability and if the situation
> happens that mkdir and cp are not in the $PATH we will have much bigger
> problems than running sed on all .spec files.
I am sorry but this will hit even if you don't use macro when tools are not
in $PATH, unless you use fu
>> mkdir -p
>>cp -p ...
It will be good if you make use of macro like %{__cp}
Please, no! %{__cp} hugely decreases readability and if the situation
happens that mkdir and cp are not in the $PATH we will have much bigger
problems than running sed on all .spec files. Use just plain Unix
com
I am not reviewer but I think it make sense following things are good
to incorporate
>># These packages are not require for python >=2.6 but required for python
= 2.5
>>Requires: python >= 2.5
I think your Requires: must be python = 2.5
>>%setup -q -n cloud-%version
is that version shoul
Hello:
Could someone please review my first package:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=799810 ?
Since, this is my first, I am in need of a sponsor (FAS: amitksaha)
Thanks a lot !
-Amit
--
http://echorand.me
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproj
On 01/25/2012 09:47 PM, Matej Cepl wrote:
On 25.1.2012 15:32, Richard Shaw wrote:
The summary from the spec file says:
Summary:Jabber client based on Qt
which is much better, but the extended description could be more clear.
Is this package both a IM client and a collection of plugins?
On 25.1.2012 15:32, Richard Shaw wrote:
The summary from the spec file says:
Summary:Jabber client based on Qt
which is much better, but the extended description could be more clear.
Is this package both a IM client and a collection of plugins?
Also, what's the difference from psi-non
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 6:36 AM, Ivan Romanov wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I opened review request for my psi-plus package.
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=709328 . But nobody want to take
> it. I am looking somebody who will do this review. Review exchange is
> possible.
It would be a good
Hello.
I opened review request for my psi-plus package.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=709328 . But nobody want to
take it. I am looking somebody who will do this review. Review exchange
is possible.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.
I also need a sponsor. Sorry, forgot to mention that.
Upstream updated, so I updated the SRPM and spec files and added those
to the review request.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Hello. My name is Russell Golden. I am currently an Ambassador, and I would
like to branch into packaging.
I already have a review request up: the EFF's HTTPS Everywhere browser
plugin. I would greatly appreciate any and all feedback that a reviewer
might have.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bu
Hello. My name is Russell Golden. I am currently an Ambassador, and I would
like to branch into packaging.
I already have a review request up: the EFF's HTTPS Everywhere browser
plugin. I would greatly appreciate any and all feedback that a reviewer
might have.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bu
- Original Message -
> From: "Martin Krizek"
> To: t...@lists.fedoraproject.org, devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2011 2:19:20 PM
> Subject: Package review request - yourls
> Hello all,
>
> I packaged yourls (http://yourls.org/)
Hello all,
I packaged yourls (http://yourls.org/), a url shortening service that can be
run at one's own server, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=726131.
We, in AutoQA (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/AutoQA), would really appreciate
if someone could review this package. We are going t
Hi,
I've been working on packaging my own software project 'Octopus Load
Balancer' for Fedora and need a sponsor. A bugzilla review request has been
raised here
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=679980
I've have taken some advice and recommendations from some kind souls already
but as
37 matches
Mail list logo
