https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2126323
--- Comment #5 from Benson Muite ---
Thanks for attempting to unbundle.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187030
Benson Muite changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127693
--- Comment #3 from Benson Muite ---
Yes it is helpful to capture the history as you are unretiring the package, and
not making an entirely new package.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2126146
Benson Muite changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2126323
--- Comment #4 from Sergey ---
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #3)
> Why is cbang bundled in here? By all rights, it looks like the library can
> be unbundled and packaged separately? The scons build script supports being
> built as a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2126323
Neal Gompa changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ngomp...@gmail.com
--- Comment #3 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2126323
--- Comment #2 from Sergey ---
Benson, please disregard my comment 1
Spec URL:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/snmende/camotics/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04852696-camotics/camotics.spec
SRPM URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127314
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-3e8733980f has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127314
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-9756945a87 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2125678
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Status|ON_QA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2043940
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2094582
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127737
--- Comment #6 from Daniel Axelrod ---
Awesome, thank you!
Requested repo:
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/47624
And branches:
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/47625
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127737
Neal Gompa changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127693
--- Comment #2 from Robby Callicotte ---
Hello,
Yes, it is my intention to unretire hashie. Releng ticket:
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/11038
I have updated the spec and srpms... Included tests...
SPEC:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127737
Daniel Axelrod changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(ngomp...@gmail.co
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2060621
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Kadlčík ---
> Mock -
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Using_Mock_to_test_package_builds#How_do_I_use_Mock?
> (Don't worry about the document length, using mock is quite simple. The only
> important section for you
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127737
--- Comment #3 from Neal Gompa ---
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #2)
>
> Issues:
> ===
> - If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
> in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2126146
--- Comment #10 from Vitaly Zaitsev ---
> Updating distro to 1.7.0 seems to work,
> https://github.com/conan-io/conan/pull/12140 maybe it is better to do that
> than drop all the limits in requirements.txt
Removing pinned versions is a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2126146
--- Comment #9 from Benson Muite ---
Thanks Ben, you have allowed for 2 copies of the license file in some of your
Python packaging reviews. I do not know if this is documented anywhere? In this
case it would seem to make sense since Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127737
--- Comment #2 from Neal Gompa ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- If (and only if) the source package includes the text
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127737
Neal Gompa changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ngomp...@gmail.com
Status|NEW
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2126146
Ben Beasley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(code@musicinmybra |
|in.net)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127737
Bug ID: 2127737
Summary: Review Request: jowl - process JSON with JavaScript
one-liners and Lodash
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2126146
Benson Muite changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(code@musicinmybra
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120418
--- Comment #5 from Kalev Lember ---
Anything still blocking the review?
As for the /usr/bin/appstream-util and /usr/bin/desktop-file-validate
buildrequires, I am still of the mind that it's best to spell out what
executable we need as I've
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2126323
--- Comment #1 from Sergey ---
Update:
Spec URL:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/snmende/camotics/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04843957-camotics/camotics.spec
SRPM URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2125789
Benson Muite changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||182235 (FE-Legal)
--- Comment #5 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187030
--- Comment #35 from Joachim Frieben ---
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #34)
Hi Benson, thanks for looking at my giza COPR package. Let me reply to your
comments as follows:
> 1) You have gcc-gfortran, but it would also be helpful to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091389
Benson Muite changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2123954
--- Comment #18 from Sandro ---
Thank you for the review.
As mentioned in my opening comment, I'm not yet in the packagers group. Will
you be able to sponsor me? Or do I need to take additional steps before I am
admitted as a package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127414
--- Comment #1 from Benson Muite ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package does not use a name that already exists.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2123954
Parag AN(पराग) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flags|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2126146
--- Comment #6 from Vitaly Zaitsev ---
> Is it possible to run the tests
Most of their tests require network access. Not suitable for Fedora. Also I
don't want to handle with upstream tests failures.
> The version on PyPi is 1.5.2 not the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2126146
--- Comment #5 from Benson Muite ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2055622
Jakub Kadlčík changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jkadl...@redhat.com
--- Comment #1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127693
--- Comment #1 from Benson Muite ---
Assume will unretire https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-hashie
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2123954
--- Comment #16 from Sandro ---
Spec URL:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gui1ty/PyMunin3/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04830894-python-PyMunin3/python-PyMunin3.spec
SRPM URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127693
Benson Muite changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||benson_mu...@emailplus.org
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2126927
Benson Muite changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||182235 (FE-Legal)
--- Comment #1 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2123954
--- Comment #15 from Parag AN(पराग) ---
1) I am not familiar with rpmautospec. Last time I tried to look into it, I
found it frustrating to use it. Hence I am not willing to move my packages to
use it till Fedora mandates it in future
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127693
Bug ID: 2127693
Summary: Review Request: rubygem-hashie - Your friendly
neighborhood hash library
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
42 matches
Mail list logo