https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2134019
Bug ID: 2134019
Summary: Review Request: mingw-python-pip - MinGW Windows
Python pip library
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2134020
Bug ID: 2134020
Summary: Review Request: mingw-python-wheel - MinGW Windows
Python wheel library
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2134021
Bug ID: 2134021
Summary: Review Request: mingw-pyproject-rpm-macros - RPM
macros for PEP 517 MinGW Python packages
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822847
Akira TAGOH changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE
Status|POST
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127629
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #9 from Fedo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127627
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #10 from Fed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127628
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #7 from Fedo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120106
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-fcc7899bfb has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --re
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2130696
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #6 from Fedo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2056006
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #10 from Fed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2051643
--- Comment #5 from Alessio ---
Doing a scratch(In reply to Jakub Kadlčík from comment #3)
> Thank you for the update,
>
> There is a md5sum mismatch of the sources tarball
I don't know what happened. Now it should be ok.
--
You are recei
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2051643
--- Comment #6 from Alessio ---
(In reply to Jakub Kadlčík from comment #4)
> but we should probably claim ownership of the whole directory
> %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor
Ok.
> The fedora-review tool finds also these two licenses. Should we
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091002
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Ass
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2130607
Alexander Ploumistos changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|alex.ploumis...@gmail.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2124361
--- Comment #5 from Kalev Lember ---
Thanks, Fabio!
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2051643
--- Comment #7 from Alessio ---
I noticed that 2.1.0 was failing to build for s390x and ppc64le architectures,
probably due to this commit
https://github.com/lite-xl/lite-xl/commit/630ab0ab92f2ad0a29c301635ff24c384e749105
where s390x and ppc64
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2051643
--- Comment #8 from Alessio ---
New spec and srpm
Spec URL: https://alciregi.fedorapeople.org/lite-xl/lite-xl.spec
SRPM URL:
https://alciregi.fedorapeople.org/lite-xl/lite-xl-2.1.0-1.fc37.src.rpm
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822847
Benson Muite changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(ta...@redhat.com)
--- Commen
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133665
--- Comment #3 from Laura Barcziová ---
I added the line to %files. Regarding the %check, I added the import check
since the tests require some packages which are not in Fedora.
Spec URL:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lba
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2056006
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-697935ee78 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --re
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2122395
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-1c2699d326 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --re
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2122395
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-c745012d97 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --ref
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2080368
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #6 from Fedo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120106
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-6c2334830b has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --re
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2073765
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-eb67dbc863 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 o
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2130607
Sébastien Le Roux changed:
What|Removed |Added
Comment|0 |updated
--- Comment #0 has been e
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120106
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-12d69ce5ea has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing
repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-12d69ce
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120106
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-ac026d016e has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing
repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-ac026d0
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133665
Miroslav Suchý changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from M
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2073765
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-ffa3f360f0 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are o
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2131496
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review?
Status|NEW
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2132956
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review?
Status|NEW
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2130607
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--
You are receiving this mai
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120661
--- Comment #19 from Gwyn Ciesla ---
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/dnf5
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
Y
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1991164
--- Comment #11 from Gwyn Ciesla ---
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-libsodium-sys
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2056210
--- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla ---
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Lua-API
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and comp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2124361
--- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla ---
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-servo_arc
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and co
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2124697
Stefan Hajnoczi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(stefanha@redhat.c |
|om)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133872
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|POST|MODIFIED
--- Comment #6 from F
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133872
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-687f046b74 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-687f046b74
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2124546
Mark Bishop changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mbis...@duosecurity.com
--- Comment #22
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2124697
--- Comment #19 from Richard W.M. Jones ---
It was really me pointing out that possibility, what you do is for upstream to
decide :-)
I think my question is are we going to go ahead with this package right now
(with bundling), OR shall we wai
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2124546
--- Comment #23 from Davide Cavalca ---
Thanks for the report Mark, I've moved that to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2134160 for ease of tracking.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133872
Miro Hrončok changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mhron...@redhat.com
--- Comment #9 fro
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133872
--- Comment #10 from Miro Hrončok ---
python-m2r requires python3dist(mistune) without a version range. Are we 100%
sure we can update mistune without breaking this package?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2130607
--- Comment #10 from Sébastien Le Roux ---
Hello,
thanks for doing the job Alexander, and please no need to rush ;-)
Also I can help along the process, that is an opportunity to improve myself
to help others later on, so please let me know w
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133872
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #11 from Fed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2134021
Maxwell G changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gotmax@e.email,
|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133872
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Status|ON_QA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2134019
Jerry James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||loganje...@gmail.com
Flags|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2134021
--- Comment #2 from Miro Hrončok ---
> Have you communicated with the pyproject-rpm-macros maintainers about this?
Actually yes. And I was reluctant to maintain this within pyproject-rpm-macros
due to my (close to) zero understanding of MinGW
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2134019
--- Comment #2 from Jerry James ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
- Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in
the s
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133872
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-151e9e3680 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --re
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133872
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-e5598dddfd has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --re
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133872
--- Comment #15 from Miro Hrončok ---
I also don't understand why the package name is python-mistune08 and not
python-mistune0.8. See the examples at
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#multiple
But I guess it's
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2132022
Miro Hrončok changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Status|POST
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2134021
--- Comment #3 from Sandro Mani ---
The %mingw_python3 macros come from macros.mingw{32,64}-python3 as installed by
mingw{32,64}-python3. mingw{32,64}-python3 pulls in python3-devel, which in
turn pulls in the pyproject-rpm-macros. But to make
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2134224
Bug ID: 2134224
Summary: Review Request: python-sphinx-typlog-theme - A Sphinx
theme sponsored by Typlog
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2134224
Michel Alexandre Salim changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||1782288
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2134224
Neal Gompa changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
Flags|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2134224
--- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla ---
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-sphinx-typlog-theme
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are alwa
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2134224
--- Comment #3 from Michel Alexandre Salim ---
Thanks!
Thanks!
python-mistune on v2 [?] took 3s
⬢ [fedora-toolbox:37] ❯ fedpkg request-branch --repo python-sphinx-typlog-theme
--all-releases
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/is
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2124697
Stefan Hajnoczi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(rjo...@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2051643
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Kadlčík ---
Thank you for the changes,
> Issues:
> ===
> - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
> in the spec URL.
> Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in
> /hom
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2130607
--- Comment #11 from Alexander Ploumistos ---
Here goes:
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
- Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-instal
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2130607
--- Comment #12 from Alexander Ploumistos ---
P.S.: I corrected your link to the source rpm (the .fc36 was missing) because
fedora-review was complaining and I was too lazy to fetch the file and run it
locally :P
--
You are receiving this m
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2134021
--- Comment #4 from Miro Hrončok ---
Random thoughts:
--
I agree that the dependency on pyproject-rpm-macros should be explicit and
better yet versioned (somehow).
--
The version of this package seems quite
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2118090
--- Comment #3 from Stuart D Gathman ---
Spec URL: https://gathman.org/linux/SPECS/rust-signature_derive.spec
SRPM URL:
https://gathman.org/linux/f37/src/rust-signature_derive-1.0.0~pre.7-1.fc37.src.rpm
--
You are receiving this mail becaus
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2117954
--- Comment #6 from Stuart D Gathman ---
I rebuilt with --postinstall after build new rust-signature_derive-1.0.0-pre.7
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to thi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121490
--- Comment #1 from Stuart D Gathman ---
Spec URL: https://gathman.org/linux/SPECS/rust-sodiumoxide.spec
SRPM URL:
https://gathman.org/linux/f37/src/rust-sodiumoxide-0.2.7-2.fc37.src.rpm
One of the tests fails - a missing compile dependency:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981119
--- Comment #14 from Stuart D Gathman ---
New Spec URL: https://gathman.org/linux/SPECS/rust-ed25519.spec
New SRPM URL:
https://gathman.org/linux/f37/src/rust-ed25519-1.5.2-2.fc37.src.rpm
Post install check has 3 errors:
Problem 1: conflict
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1983745
--- Comment #14 from Stuart D Gathman ---
New Spec URL: https://gathman.org/linux/SPECS/rust-ed25519-dalek.spec
New SRPM URL:
https://gathman.org/linux/f37/src/rust-ed25519-dalek-1.0.1-4.fc37.src.rpm
Problem 1: conflicting requests
- noth
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121490
--- Comment #2 from Stuart D Gathman ---
Added --skip to %cargo_test
%cargo_test -- -- --skip newtype_macros::new_type
test result: ok. 21 passed; 0 failed; 0 ignored; 0 measured; 3 filtered out;
finished in 2.47s
error: test failed, to re
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2134021
--- Comment #5 from Sandro Mani ---
> I agree that the dependency on pyproject-rpm-macros should be explicit and
> better yet versioned (somehow).
Ok - versioned to make sure that manual intervention is required to make sure
that a new versi
74 matches
Mail list logo
