Re: Simple C utility package review request

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

Simple C utility package review request

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 --

package review request (three packages)

Can someone review these three packages? These will be needed to update spyder to 5.1.0 (expected to be released by the end of this month). python-lsp-jsonrpc: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1979275 python-lsp-server: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1979315

package review request

Hi, Can someone please review this relatively straightforward package? This is new dependency for spyder. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1977120 Thank you. Mukundan. -- GPG Key: E5C8BC67 OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature

package review request - python-textdistance

Hi, Can someone please review this package? python-textdistance: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1910822 This should be the last package I need to update spyder to version 4.2.1 (along with other dependencies). I can update spyder once this is approved. Thank you, Mukundan.

OpenOSC package review request for Fedora

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

Re: Python 3.9 package review request

On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 5:57 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > Python 3.9.0a1 is out: https://www.python.org/downloads/release/python-390a1/ > > Here is the package review request for python39: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1774417 I've grabbed the review. Let's

Python 3.9 package review request

Python 3.9.0a1 is out: https://www.python.org/downloads/release/python-390a1/ Here is the package review request for python39: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1774417 -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ python-devel

package review request: python-wurlitzer

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 ___ python-devel mailing list --

package review request: python-wurlitzer

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 --

Re: Looking for some (Python) Package Review Request for a sponsee

Thanks, Miro and Athos! I like Flask and I'll start investigating the package right away. best regards, Aivar ___ python-devel mailing list -- python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to

Re: Looking for some (Python) Package Review Request for a sponsee

On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 01:53:23PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > Hi, Hi Miro, > > I want to sponsor Aivar Annamaa [1]. I would like him to review some > packages first. Are you working on something? Anyone who will need a package > review, please ping us (Aivar is CC'ed and also subscribed to

Looking for some (Python) Package Review Request for a sponsee

Hi, I want to sponsor Aivar Annamaa [1]. I would like him to review some packages first. Are you working on something? Anyone who will need a package review, please ping us (Aivar is CC'ed and also subscribed to this list). Python packages would be appreciated, but anything at least a bit

Re: Reviving a stale Package Review request

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 > proceed from he

Re: Reviving a stale Package Review request

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 here. Sho

Reviving a stale Package Review request

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

package review request - xfce4-calculator-plugin

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

Re: package review request

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

Re: package review request

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

Re: package review request

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

Re: package review request

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 -

package review request

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

openqa package review request

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

Re: openqa package review request

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

Re: Package Review Request and FE-NEEDSPONSOR

Hi Christiopher, Thank you for your reply. On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 12:40 AM, Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com 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

Package Review Request and FE-NEEDSPONSOR

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

Re: Package Review Request and FE-NEEDSPONSOR

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

package review request

-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:

introduction and package review request

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 in

Package review request: Script-Tools

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

Re: Package Review Request: python-picloud

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

Re: Package Review Request: python-picloud

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 should be

Re: Package Review Request: python-picloud

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

Re: Package Review Request: python-picloud

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 full

Package Review Request: python-picloud

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

Psi-plus package. review request.

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

Re: Psi-plus package. review request.

On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 6:36 AM, Ivan Romanov dr...@land.ru 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

Re: Psi-plus package. review request.

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

Re: Psi-plus package. review request.

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

Re: Package review request

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

Package review request

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.

Package review request

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.

Re: Package review request - yourls

- Original Message - From: Martin Krizek mkri...@redhat.com 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/), a url shortening

Package review request - yourls

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

Package review request

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