https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243093
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Status|ON_QA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243093
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #32 from Fed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243093
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|POST|MODIFIED
--- Comment #31 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243093
--- Comment #30 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions
---
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mat2
--
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=2243093
--- Comment #29 from Benson Muite ---
Thanks. Probably "E: explicit-lib-dependency"should be changed to indicate that
it only applies for compiled arched packages.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about change
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243093
--- Comment #28 from Artem ---
Thank you! No prob at all. Appreciate thorough review. And IIRC -devel package
not needed there either for BR. This deps needed for tests and for app itself
to work properly. I'll test it ASAP. I still think we m
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243093
Benson Muite changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
Status|ASSIGN
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243093
--- Comment #26 from Artem ---
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #25)
Did you tested this? IIRC it will not work, we need librsvg2 explicitly as
runtime dep, not librsvg2-devel just for BR.
Where is this documented and MUST fixed? "E: ex
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243093
--- Comment #25 from Benson Muite ---
To remove:
mat2.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency librsvg2
mat2.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency poppler-glib
Can you modify the spec file to add -devel packages for the libraries for
example:
%global
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243093
--- Comment #24 from Artem ---
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #18)
> d) Can the build warnings in the log be fixed? Upstream does not test on
> python3.12 but probably should:
> https://0xacab.org/jvoisin/mat2/-/blob/master/.gitlab-ci.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243093
--- Comment #23 from Artem ---
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #22)
Contacted via e-email. I've also emailed since day one antoine.ten...@ack.tf
(current COPR maintainer) and invited as co-maintainer but did not receive any
answer yet
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243093
--- Comment #22 from Benson Muite ---
For d, contact information for maintainer is in the README
https://0xacab.org/jvoisin/mat2
--
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=2243093
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Review Service
---
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6577377
(succeeded)
Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2243093-mat2/fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243093
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Review Service
---
Created attachment 1996075
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1996075&action=edit
The .spec file difference from Copr build 6532626 to 6577377
--
You are receiving this mail b
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243093
--- Comment #19 from Artem ---
Thanks, fixed: a, b, c, e. Also added 'kdialog' dep required for Dolphin
sub-package.
d) Can't fix. Can't even register on https://0xacab.org/ due:
Email is not allowed for sign-up.
Tried Gmail, Protonmail.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243093
--- Comment #18 from Benson Muite ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243093
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Review Service
---
Created attachment 1994224
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1994224&action=edit
The .spec file difference from Copr build 6532622 to 6532626
--
You are receiving this mail b
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243093
--- Comment #16 from Artem ---
I've tested Dolphin plugin and it works. Icon also visible in Dolphin. Also
fixed "Does not install correctly", the problem was with dolphin sub-package.
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/atim/p
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243093
--- Comment #15 from Artem ---
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/atim/playground/fedora-39-x86_64/06530776-mat2/mat2.spec
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/atim/playground/fedora-39-x86_64/06530776-mat2/mat2-0
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243093
--- Comment #14 from Artem ---
Thanks for tips!
1. Added icon file for Dolphin integration. But did't tested at all this
Dolphin integration plugin. Would be nice if someone help with testing.
2. Indeed, python3dist(mutagen), python3dist(pyca
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243093
--- Comment #13 from Benson Muite ---
Probably worth adding a section on KDE applications to
packaging guidelines:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines
The desktop file seems to have the correct format:
https://0xacab.org
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243093
--- Comment #12 from Artem ---
No need to validate .desktop file for KDE services. Answer in Matrix from KDE
devs:
> That's expected. No you should NOT validate those files. Only files in
%{_datadir}/applications.
I've added annotation abou
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243093
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Review Service
---
Created attachment 1994097
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1994097&action=edit
The .spec file difference from Copr build 6524040 to 6528348
--
You are receiving this mail b
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243093
--- Comment #10 from Artem ---
a) Package install correctly for me on f39 x86_64. Maybe f40 aarch64 bug?
b) Main package depend on:
Requires: python3-%{modname} = %{version}-%{release}
python3-%{modname} (python3-libmat2) contain licen
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243093
--- Comment #9 from Benson Muite ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243093
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Review Service
---
Created attachment 1993780
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1993780&action=edit
The .spec file difference from Copr build 6516535 to 6524040
--
You are receiving this mail be
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243093
--- Comment #7 from Artem ---
Thanks for review! New build:
Spec URL:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/atim/playground/fedora-39-x86_64/06524035-mat2/mat2.spec
SRPM URL:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ati
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243093
--- Comment #6 from Benson Muite ---
Warnings in build log:
/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/setuptools/config/_apply_pyprojecttoml.py:73:
_WouldIgn
oreField: `description` defined outside of `pyproject.toml` would be ignored.
!!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243093
--- Comment #5 from Benson Muite ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243093
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Review Service
---
Created attachment 1993476
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1993476&action=edit
The .spec file difference from Copr build 6514243 to 6516535
--
You are receiving this mail be
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243093
--- Comment #3 from Artem ---
Quick fixes:
Spec URL:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/atim/playground/fedora-39-x86_64/06516524-mat2/mat2.spec
SRPM URL:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/atim/playground/fedo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243093
Benson Muite changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review?
Status|NEW
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243093
Artem changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||2243131
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243093
Artem changed:
What|Removed |Added
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #2 fr
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243093
--- Comment #1 from Artem ---
This package built on koji:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=107323544
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to th
35 matches
Mail list logo
