https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1701567 Adam Borowski <kilobyte(a)angband.pl&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- 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=1701567 --- Comment #2 from Adam Borowski <kilobyte(a)angband.pl&gt; --- Done; the new SRPM is at: https://angband.pl/tmp/fedora/colorized-logs-2.4-1.fc30.src.rpm Thanks for the review so far! -- 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=1701567 --- Comment #4 from Adam Borowski <kilobyte(a)angband.pl&gt; --- Spec URL: https://angband.pl/tmp/fedora/colorized-logs.spec SRPM URL: https://angband.pl/tmp/fedora/colorized-logs-2.4-1.fc30.src.rpm Done, other than for bumping release/changelog -- should they keep trace of any in-review version that hasn't been committed to any public repository? This would pollute the final package with WIP changes. But perhaps I'm wrong with applying the reasoning I'm used to in Debian to Fedora workflows? The diff from previous attempt is whitespace only, so there are no real changes to mention in this case. Is this good enough for now? For the other package (vmemcache): fedora-scm-requests got denied because "review is approved by a user that is not a packager", thus I guess it needs to be seen by someone with actual privileges. -- 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=1701567 Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST CC| |zebob.m(a)gmail.com Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |zebob.m(a)gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com&gt; --- LGTM, package approved. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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", "*No copyright* Expat License". 17 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/colorized-logs/review-colorized- logs/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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 10240 bytes in 2 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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. [x]: %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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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 debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: colorized-logs-2.4-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm colorized-logs-debuginfo-2.4-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm colorized-logs-debugsource-2.4-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm colorized-logs-2.4-1.fc31.src.rpm colorized-logs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gcc -> cc, g cc, gulch colorized-logs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dmesg -> demesne colorized-logs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US colordiff -> color diff, color-diff, colorful colorized-logs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ccze -> eczema colorized-logs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scroller -> stroller, scrolled, scroll er colorized-logs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ttyrec -> McIntyre colorized-logs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US stdout -> stout, std out, std-out colorized-logs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US stderr -> std err, std-err, stander colorized-logs.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dmesg -> demesne colorized-logs.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US colordiff -> color diff, color-diff, colorful colorized-logs.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ccze -> eczema colorized-logs.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scroller -> stroller, scrolled, scroll er colorized-logs.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ttyrec -> McIntyre colorized-logs.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pipetty -> pipette, pi petty, pi-petty colorized-logs.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US stdout -> stout, std out, std-out colorized-logs.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US stderr -> std err, std-err, stander 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 16 warnings. I have sponsored you, please make sure you are suscribed to the required mailing lists: You must join the fedora devel-announce mailing list. It is a low traffic announcements only list, where important development information is posted. https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel-announce@lists.fedora... You can join the fedora devel mailing list, where discussions about the development of Fedora are held. This is a high traffic mailing list. https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/ Another mailing list you might consider (at least to view the archives) is packaging. This is the mailing list of the Fedora Packaging Committee, who determine the official packaging guidelines for Fedora projects. https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@lists.fedoraproje... Read up on "Configure Your Git", "Install the developer client tools", then continue with requesting your repos: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers?rd... Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- 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=1701567 Adam Borowski <kilobyte(a)angband.pl&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2020-02-18 15:40:09 -- 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