July 2020 - package-review - Fedora Mailing-Lists

[Bug 851819] Review Request: mingw-sparsehash - MinGW Extremely memory-efficient C++ hash_map implementation

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851819 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 <zebob.m(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |zebob.m(a)gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #15 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 <zebob.m(a)gmail.com> --- Package approved. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "FSF All Permissive License", "Expat License", "NTP License". 53 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/mingw-sparsehash/review- mingw-sparsehash/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys- root/mingw/include/google(mingw32-protobuf), /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys- root/mingw/include/google(mingw64-protobuf) [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 61440 bytes in 8 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: 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 license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in mingw32-sparsehash , mingw64-sparsehash [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. Note: mingw32-sparsehash : /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys- root/mingw/lib/pkgconfig/libsparsehash.pc mingw64-sparsehash : /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/pkgconfig/libsparsehash.pc [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. -- 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

3 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 Brandon Nielsen <nielsenb(a)jetfuse.net> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(nielsenb@jetfuse. | |net) | --- Comment #19 from Brandon Nielsen <nielsenb(a)jetfuse.net> --- I am still interested in packaging this software, though the upstream support situation certainly hasn't changed much, with other parts of the toolchain moving back to closed source... Anyway, I've started work on getting the latest version to build in my copr[0], I will report back with an updated spec and SRPM once I have that working. 0 - https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/nielsenb/msp430-development-tools... -- 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

3 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

needinfo canceled: [Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Brandon Nielsen <nielsenb(a)jetfuse.net> has canceled Package Review <package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>'s request for Brandon Nielsen <nielsenb(a)jetfuse.net>'s needinfo: Bug 1350884: Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 --- Comment #19 from Brandon Nielsen <nielsenb(a)jetfuse.net> --- I am still interested in packaging this software, though the upstream support situation certainly hasn't changed much, with other parts of the toolchain moving back to closed source... Anyway, I've started work on getting the latest version to build in my copr[0], I will report back with an updated spec and SRPM once I have that working. 0 - https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/nielsenb/msp430-development-tools... /1545336/

3 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 1855456] New: Review Request: rust-pretty-hex - Pretty hex dump of bytes slice in the common style

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1855456 Bug ID: 1855456 Summary: Review Request: rust-pretty-hex - Pretty hex dump of bytes slice in the common style Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org Reporter: jistone(a)redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://jistone.fedorapeople.org//rust-pretty-hex.spec SRPM URL: https://jistone.fedorapeople.org//rust-pretty-hex-0.1.1-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: Pretty hex dump of bytes slice in the common style. -- 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

3 years, 9 months

1
5
0 / 0

[Bug 1149524] Review Request: perl-Digest-Whirlpool - Interface to Whirlpool hash algorithm

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149524 --- Comment #4 from Denis Fateyev <denis(a)fateyev.com> --- Well, I still use "perl-Digest-Whirlpool" in several legacy projects, so I believe we could complete and finish this package review. I need to prepare a patch that would allow to unbundle Whirlpool code. BTW, I have prepared and packaged "libwhirlpool" library many years ago. -- 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

3 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 1419032] Review Request: mingw-jimtcl - MinGW small embeddable Tcl interpreter

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1419032 Thomas Sailer <t.sailer(a)alumni.ethz.ch> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2020-07-10 18:57:42 --- Comment #12 from Thomas Sailer <t.sailer(a)alumni.ethz.ch> --- https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=46951805 -- 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

3 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 1419032] Review Request: mingw-jimtcl - MinGW small embeddable Tcl interpreter

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1419032 --- Comment #11 from Gwyn Ciesla <gwync(a)protonmail.com> --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mingw-jimtcl -- 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

3 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 851819] Review Request: mingw-sparsehash - MinGW Extremely memory-efficient C++ hash_map implementation

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851819 --- Comment #14 from Thomas Sailer <t.sailer(a)alumni.ethz.ch> --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 from comment #10) I should have addressed all of your comments. https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/sailer/mingw/build/1545170/ Thanks a lot Robert-André for your review comments! -- 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

3 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 851819] Review Request: mingw-sparsehash - MinGW Extremely memory-efficient C++ hash_map implementation

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851819 --- Comment #13 from Thomas Sailer <t.sailer(a)alumni.ethz.ch> --- > Find an official mirror? I don't think there's one anymore, ubuntu also uses the github.com version -- 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

3 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 1265759] Review Request: mingw-drmingw - Just-in-Time (JIT) debugger for MinGW

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265759 --- Comment #4 from Thomas Sailer <t.sailer(a)alumni.ethz.ch> --- https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/sailer/mingw/build/1545139/ I should have fixed all of the above. The non-installability was caused because a bundled zlib sneaked in - I have replaced it with system zlib -- 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

3 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

package-review July 2020