Re: Request for Review for Two New Packages

Hi All, The bmake-based mk-configure package review is completed. Could someone please review libmaa? It is a C language one. Thank you, Carlos R.F. On 1/13/24 12:10, Carlos Rodriguez Fernandez wrote: Hi All, I posted two new packages for review. Feedback is highly appreciated :)

Request for Review for Two New Packages

Hi All, I posted two new packages for review. Feedback is highly appreciated :) mk-configure https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2257985 libmaa https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2257986 Some context: I took the orphan package dictd. Dictd depends on libmaa. The dictd spec

Re: Request to review a MinGW subpackges in libsodium

On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 03:17:21PM +0200, Marián Konček wrote: > I opened a PR adding mingw subpackages to libsodium according to my best > knowledge (which is not too large related to mingw packaging): > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libsodium/pull-request/3 > > I talked with the maintainer

Re: Request to review a MinGW subpackges in libsodium

Hi Please check out [1] for a sample unified native/mingw spec with autotools build. Specific remarks: - Add %{?mingw_debug_package} - Explicit BR on mingw-binutils probably unnecessary - Try %global _configure ../configure instead of cloning the entire source tree - Add

Request to review a MinGW subpackges in libsodium

I opened a PR adding mingw subpackages to libsodium according to my best knowledge (which is not too large related to mingw packaging): https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libsodium/pull-request/3 I talked with the maintainer and it could be accepted, but I would like someone more experienced

Request to review PR: OpenCL quick-docs

I opened a PR to provide my openCL guide as a Fedora quick-doc https://pagure.io/fedora-docs/quick-docs/pull-request/356 ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora

Re: Changes Policy & Fedora Release Life Cycle - request for review

On Wed, 2017-11-15 at 00:47 +, Tim Landscheidt wrote: > Adam Williamson wrote: > > > > I tried to merge together all the changes we were facing during the > > > last time with regards to Changes Policy & Fedora Release Life Cycle. > > > The outcome is available in

Re: Changes Policy & Fedora Release Life Cycle - request for review

I dont want to reduce the time between branching and bodhi enablement. The gap is for any short comings from branching, but if you guys think it is absolutely necessary then I am okay with reducing it to a week. Also, I want to point out that traditionally Alpha freeze and Bodhi enablement

Re: Changes Policy & Fedora Release Life Cycle - request for review

Przemek Klosowski wrote: > In MediaWiki, revisions compared in a diff do not need to > belong to the same article. So for example, to compare the > current revision of...(488139) to the current revision of > ...(505754), you can use the URL >

Re: Changes Policy & Fedora Release Life Cycle - request for review

On 11/14/2017 07:47 PM, Tim Landscheidt wrote: In MediaWiki, revisions compared in a diff do not need to belong to the same article. So for example, to compare the current revision of...(488139) to the current revision of ...(505754), you can use the URL

Re: Changes Policy & Fedora Release Life Cycle - request for review

Adam Williamson wrote: >> I tried to merge together all the changes we were facing during the >> last time with regards to Changes Policy & Fedora Release Life Cycle. >> The outcome is available in [1] and [2]. Before I will ask FESCo for a >> review, I would like to

Re: Changes Policy & Fedora Release Life Cycle - request for review

On Fri, 2017-11-10 at 17:27 +0100, Jan Kurik wrote: > Hi everybody, > > I tried to merge together all the changes we were facing during the > last time with regards to Changes Policy & Fedora Release Life Cycle. > The outcome is available in [1] and [2]. Before I will ask FESCo for a > review, I

Re: Changes Policy & Fedora Release Life Cycle - request for review

On Tue, 2017-11-14 at 10:41 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Fri, 2017-11-10 at 17:27 +0100, Jan Kurik wrote: > > Hi everybody, > > > > I tried to merge together all the changes we were facing during the > > last time with regards to Changes Policy & Fedora Release Life Cycle. > > The outcome

Re: Changes Policy & Fedora Release Life Cycle - request for review

On Fri, 2017-11-10 at 17:27 +0100, Jan Kurik wrote: > Hi everybody, > > I tried to merge together all the changes we were facing during the > last time with regards to Changes Policy & Fedora Release Life Cycle. > The outcome is available in [1] and [2]. Before I will ask FESCo for a > review, I

Re: Changes Policy & Fedora Release Life Cycle - request for review

On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 05:27:25PM +0100, Jan Kurik wrote: >> [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Jkurik/Fedora_Release_Life_Cycle > > This looks generally good to me. The one change I would make is to > add to

Re: Changes Policy & Fedora Release Life Cycle - request for review

Dne 10.11.2017 v 18:18 Matthew Miller napsal(a): > On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 05:27:25PM +0100, Jan Kurik wrote: >> [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Jkurik/Fedora_Release_Life_Cycle > Do we really want to have a window after branch where > Bodhi isn't active? Bit of OT, but I'd appreciate

Re: Changes Policy & Fedora Release Life Cycle - request for review

On 11/10/2017 09:18 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: ...snip... > > On a bigger note: Do we really want to have a window after branch where > Bodhi isn't active? Might it be better to put that as part of the > Branch step? I don't think we want a longer freeze period (especially > during beta) but we

Re: Changes Policy & Fedora Release Life Cycle - request for review

On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 11:18 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: And, on a even bigger note, the F27 July-to-October experiment worked reasonably well (with the large remainer of the still-outstanding Modular Server) but I don't think we want to do that again. I'd like to

Re: Changes Policy & Fedora Release Life Cycle - request for review

On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 05:27:25PM +0100, Jan Kurik wrote: > [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Jkurik/Fedora_Release_Life_Cycle This looks generally good to me. The one change I would make is to add to "Tue: Primary date from which rest of schedule derives". Make that: Tue: Primary date

Changes Policy & Fedora Release Life Cycle - request for review

Hi everybody, I tried to merge together all the changes we were facing during the last time with regards to Changes Policy & Fedora Release Life Cycle. The outcome is available in [1] and [2]. Before I will ask FESCo for a review, I would like to ask anyone who is interested for a review and

Request for review of F27 Release Blocking deliverables

I would like to request review of Release Blocking deliverables for Fedora 27 release. I aware of the fact we are already in Beta Freeze and I apologize for not having the list of deliverables ready in advance. The list is available on usual location [1]. Please let me know in case there is any

Re: Request for review swap

Till Hofmann wrote on 01/18/2017 09:30 PM: On 18.01.2017 13:09, Mamoru TASAKA wrote: Hello, all: I have one review request for a package for LXDE: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409243 lxhotkey Review swap is appreciated. I'll take it. Can you please review librealsense: https

Re: Request for review swap

On 18.01.2017 13:09, Mamoru TASAKA wrote: > Hello, all: > > I have one review request for a package for LXDE: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409243 lxhotkey > > Review swap is appreciated. I'll take it. Can you please review librealsense: https://bugzilla.redha

Request for review swap

Hello, all: I have one review request for a package for LXDE: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409243 lxhotkey Review swap is appreciated. Regards, Mamoru ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send

Re: Request of review

hi Il 18/09/2016 19:21, Sylvia ha scritto: Hello everyone! Lesik (Oles Pidgornyy) has this package and would like to know if anyone could kindly review and see if there's any changes or additions that are necessary to package this programme for Fedora. Here's a bug opened:

Request of review

Hello everyone! Lesik  (Oles Pidgornyy) has this package and would like to know if anyone could kindly review and see if there's any changes or additions that are necessary to package this programme for Fedora. Here's a bug opened:  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1377038  Thank

Request for Review: Python marketing brochure

Hello all, Brian (bprofitt / bkp) recently helped finish the final proposed version of the brochure we plan to use in the field for quick information about Fedora + Python. If some Pythonistas could help review the brochures and make sure the content checks out and sounds good, your help

Request for Review of C-ICAP, C-ICAP Classify

Hello All, I would personally like to see Nathan Owe's packages for C-ICAP and C-ICAP Classify reviewed and included if at all possible in Fedora. I have used C-ICAP for many years. I also am the author of MOST of C-ICAP Classify (thanks to Bob Jenkins for his lookup3.c hash functions). I know

[Bug 717061] Change request (no review request ticket exists)

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717061 Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug 717061] Change request (no review request ticket exists)

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717061 Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug 717061] New: Change request (no review request ticket exists)

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Change request (no review request ticket exists) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717061 Summary: Change request (no review request ticket exists

[Bug 717061] Change request (no review request ticket exists)

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717061 --- Comment #1 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-06-27 16:27:27 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure

review request - pre-review done, needing actual reviewer

Hi, I would love to get tnef (an ms lookout email attachment lister / extractor) review completed for F13 (ie before next week). Anyone reviewer like to take a look (I can't convince every acquaintance to stop sending ms rich text which this application fixes for me :~).

review request - pre-review done, needing actual reviewer

Hi, I would love to get tnef (an ms lookout email attachment lister / extractor) review completed for F13 (ie before next week). Anyone reviewer like to take a look (I can't convince every acquaintance to stop sending ms rich text which this application fixes for me :~).