https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1757675
--- Comment #7 from Lubomir Rintel ---
Also, it seems that the part went into the guidelines *precisely* to clarify
this exact problem: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/632
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1757675
--- Comment #6 from Lubomir Rintel ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #5)
> (In reply to Lubomir Rintel from comment #4)
> > (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #3)
> > > - Don't own %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor, inste
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758626
--- Comment #31 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2019-fec9adc180 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-fec9adc180
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758626
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |MODIFIED
--- Comment #30 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758036
--- Comment #11 from Kentaro Hayashi ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #9)
> I don't know tbh, please ask on the devel mailing list about your error.
> Please double-check the API key? Did you correctly go to
> https://pagure.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758487
--- Comment #7 from Gwyn Ciesla ---
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fasttext
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758036
--- Comment #10 from Gwyn Ciesla ---
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/sentencepiece
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1760617
--- Comment #2 from Qianqian Fang ---
In this package, I also moved the .mex file to /usr/libexec (if this is the
right place), and create a link in the toolbox folder. I will do the same for
octave-zmat/octave-mcxlab.
--
You are receiving t
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1760617
--- Comment #1 from Qianqian Fang ---
rpmlint output for the srpm package
fangq@localhost SRPMS]$ rpmlint octave-mmclab-1.7.9-1.fc30.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfil
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1760617
Bug ID: 1760617
Summary: Review Request: octave-mmclab - A GPU mesh-based Monte
Carlo photon simulator for MATLAB/Octave
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758293
--- Comment #10 from Fabio Valentini ---
I've applied some changes on top of your new .spec file, with the following
suggestions for improvements:
- added License file for Apache 2.0 license (apparently it must be included in
redistributed so
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070222
Michal Ambroz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||re...@seznam.cz
Alias|pyth
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1752226
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2019-d55210bdc9 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-d55210bdc9
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list f
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1098965
Michal Ambroz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Alias|capstone|
--
You are receiving this mail beca
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1752226
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|POST|MODIFIED
--- Comment #7 from F
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758293
--- Comment #9 from Dinesh Prasanth ---
I have a new build with 2.2.0
Spec:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/dmoluguw/jboss-logging-tools/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01052747-jboss-logging-tools/jboss-logging-tools.spec
SRPM:
https:/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1760579
Bug ID: 1760579
Summary: Review Request: jboss-transaction-1.1-api - JBoss
Transaction 1.1 API
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1752226
--- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla ---
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/la-capitaine-cursor-theme
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758626
--- Comment #29 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
(In reply to Qianqian Fang from comment #27)
>
> > Here we can see that the license checker has detected a lot of licenses
> > (including AGPLv3+ and GPLv2), so the package cannot be just GPLv3+.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758626
--- Comment #28 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
You're right, Tetgen is AGPLv3 amd JMeshLib is GPLv2, but I didn't understand
it was into the resulting binary:
AGPL (v3 or later)
--
iso2mesh-1.9.1/tools/tetgen/LICENSE
GPL (v2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1590425
Cole Robinson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
Flags|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758626
--- Comment #27 from Qianqian Fang ---
> So, bundling tetgen etc if fine if necessary, but the binaries should not be
> in /usr/share. That violates the FHS as rpmlint points out. Can they be moved
> to an arch specific directory, preferably
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1590425
--- Comment #12 from Christophe de Dinechin ---
Spec URL:
https://pagure.io/fork/ddd/kata-rpm-reviews/raw/review-v2/f/kata-runtime/kata-runtime.spec
SRPM URL: http://blackbox.dinechin.org/fedora/kata-runtime-1.8.2-3.fc32.src.rpm
Description: K
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1590425
Christophe de Dinechin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(dinechin@redhat.c |
|om)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758499
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #15 from Fed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1399648
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-EPEL-2019-3618456c8e has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-3618456c8e
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are o
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758626
--- Comment #26 from Laurent Rineau ---
And the License declaration of the package is wrong. As the package bundles
other software, the licensing is complicated.
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #12)
> [x]: License field in th
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758626
--- Comment #25 from Laurent Rineau ---
(In reply to Laurent Rineau from comment #21)
> I love to see iso2mesh packaged in Fedora, but there have been error in this
> review. Even rpmlint can see them:
>
> [lrineau@bonnard]~% rpm -q octave-is
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758626
--- Comment #24 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) ---
(In reply to Laurent Rineau from comment #21)
> I love to see iso2mesh packaged in Fedora, but there have been error in this
> review. Even rpmlint can see them:
>
> [lrineau@bonnard]~% rpm -q
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758626
--- Comment #23 from Qianqian Fang ---
@Laurent,
regarding my question in the cgal-discuss mailing list, it turned out that the
large executable sizes were results of debug info in the generated executables.
Fortunately, rpm automatically str
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1751846
--- Comment #3 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) ---
Looks pretty good. A few minor issues to be corrected:
- Please add a changelog
- Please include the bits in the `paper` directory in the %doc---they contain
the citations, so it's good to s
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758626
--- Comment #22 from Qianqian Fang ---
@Laurent, thanks for chiming in.
I just tested octave-iso2mesh on f30 in updates-testing repo, the installation
and execution was fine.
regarding your comments
1. the arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1399648
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|xl2tpd-1.3.14-1.fc31|xl2tpd-1.3.14-1.fc31
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758626
Laurent Rineau changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||laurent.rineau__fedora@norm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1747552
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Blocks|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1752226
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-r
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758036
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1757675
--- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
(In reply to Lubomir Rintel from comment #4)
> (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #3)
> > - Don't own %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor, instead Requires: hicolor-icon-theme
> > and be more spe
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1757673
--- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla ---
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/phoc
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about chang
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1757675
--- Comment #4 from Lubomir Rintel ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #3)
> - Don't own %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor, instead Requires: hicolor-icon-theme
> and be more specific:
>
> Requires: hicolor-icon-theme
>
> […]
>
> %{
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1759195
Sergey Avseyev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|POST|CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1757256
Vít Ondruch changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vondr...@redhat.com
--- Comment #4 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1754964
Miro Hrončok changed:
What|Removed |Added
Link ID|Launchpad 1844684 |
--- Comment #17 from Miro Hrončok --
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1709037
--- Comment #11 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ---
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #10)
> Thanks for your advice. Though, I don't see any blockers to approve,
> otherwise please guide me in our official packaging guidelines.
> https
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758499
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2019-b143e81bf9 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-b143e81bf9
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758499
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--- Comment #13 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1752196
--- Comment #10 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ---
Hi,
this package uses the new pyproject macros
[https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/de...@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/LB3GTGGWEKBT2QWOB77XQ3WXEWN4XRUK/].
> - Package contains
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1752226
--- Comment #4 from Artem ---
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/atim/la-capitaine-cursor-theme/fedora-30-x86_64/01052015-la-capitaine-cursor-theme/la-capitaine-cursor-theme.spec
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/at
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756582
--- Comment #15 from Christopher Engelhard ---
OK, that makes sense, re: dependencies.
Thanks for your extensive review, I'll start looking for sponsors. I'll let the
people who bundle simclist know about the version status once I get hold of
49 matches
Mail list logo
