Re: Need help with package review and sponsor: bign-handheld-thumbnailer

Just a heads up, apparently the package was accepted in the review but I'm not sure what to do now. I have filled an issue about being sponsored. Guess I should just wait? Em qui., 30 de jan. de 2025, 04:39, Benson Muite escreveu: > Hi Mateus, > > On Wed, Jan 29, 2025, at 4:57 PM, Mateus Rodrig

Re: Need help with package review and sponsor: bign-handheld-thumbnailer

uble getting someone with Rust expertise, I would be happy to review a C, C++, Python, Ruby, Scheme, PHP, Java or Fortran package. It also helps sponsors if you can do a few mock reviews of other packages and link them in your first package review. > > Em qui., 30 de jan. de 2025, 04:39

Re: Package review - submitter not responding

On Mon, Feb 3, 2025 at 9:19 PM Łukasz Wojniłowicz wrote: > > Hi all, > according to > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Package_review_policy/#submitter_not_responding > > "When the submitter of a review ticket has not responded to comments for one > month, a comment is added to the tic

Re: Package review - submitter not responding

On 25-02-03 16:38, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Mon, Feb 03, 2025 at 09:18:56PM +0100, Łukasz Wojniłowicz wrote: Hi all, according to https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Package_review_policy/#submitter_not_responding "When the submitter of a review ticket has not responded to comments for one

Re: Package review - submitter not responding

On Mon, Feb 03, 2025 at 09:18:56PM +0100, Łukasz Wojniłowicz wrote: > Hi all, > according to > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Package_review_policy/#submitter_not_responding > > "When the submitter of a review ticket has not responded to comments for one > month, a comment is added t

Re: Need help with package review and sponsor: bign-handheld-thumbnailer

Hi Mateus, On Wed, Jan 29, 2025, at 4:57 PM, Mateus Rodrigues Costa wrote: > Hello all, > > My name is Mateus, I'm the developer of bign-handheld-thumbnailer [1], > a thumbnailer for both Nintendo DS and 3DS roms. > bign-handheld-thumbnailer is developed in Rust and effectively > replaces gnome-nd

Need help with package review and sponsor: bign-handheld-thumbnailer

Hello all, My name is Mateus, I'm the developer of bign-handheld-thumbnailer [1], a thumbnailer for both Nintendo DS and 3DS roms. bign-handheld-thumbnailer is developed in Rust and effectively replaces gnome-nds-thumbnailer [2], developed in C from many years back. If you follow This Week in GNOM

Package review swaps: Tree-sitter parsers

Would anyone like to swap a review for a Tree-sitter parser? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_id=2258924&bug_id_type=anddependson&bug_status=__open__&columnlist=product%2Ccomponent%2Cassigned_to%2Cbug_status%2Cshort_desc%2Cchangeddate%2Cbug_severity&component=Package%20Review&order=sta

Re: Review for Package Review - infoblox-client (Bug #2308691)

And it's done! A very simple and clean package. Andrew, can I ask you for a favour? If you have a free time then could you please take a look at this simple Python package? * https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2308053 - python-pytest-cid - Pytest plugin to compare CIDs On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 9:32 PM P

Re: Review for Package Review - infoblox-client (Bug #2308691)

I'll review it On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 9:12 PM Andrew Heath wrote: > > Hello, > I am kindly asking for a review of my submitted package infoblox-client, this > tool is a set of python libraries for managing NIOS base systems. I have > submitted Bugzilla 2308691 for review. > > Thank you very mu

Review for Package Review - infoblox-client (Bug #2308691)

Hello, I am kindly asking for a review of my submitted package infoblox-client, this tool is a set of python libraries for managing NIOS base systems. I have submitted Bugzilla 2308691 for review. Thank you very much in advance! -- Sincerely,

Request for Package Review – Clash Meta Proxy Tool (Bug #2305079)

Hello everyone, I am reaching out to request your valuable review of a recently submitted package on the Fedora Bugzilla: "clash-meta," which is designed as an essential network proxy tool for accessing websites like GitHub in certain regions where direct access may be restricted or limited by

Re: Package review ticket status change after approval

Il 06/02/24 14:34, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ha scritto: > On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 06:47:21PM +, Mattia Verga via devel wrote: >> That said, I'd like to make a request and maybe make all reviewers aware >> of a feature which was implemented some time ago. I've noticed many >> reviewers change

Re: Package review ticket status change after approval

V Tue, Feb 06, 2024 at 01:34:54PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a): > On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 06:47:21PM +, Mattia Verga via devel wrote: > > That said, I'd like to make a request and maybe make all reviewers aware > > of a feature which was implemented some time ago. I've noticed

Re: Package review ticket status change after approval

On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 06:47:21PM +, Mattia Verga via devel wrote: > That said, I'd like to make a request and maybe make all reviewers aware > of a feature which was implemented some time ago. I've noticed many > reviewers change the ticket status from ASSIGNED to POST when they flag > the

[Package Review] MaterialX

Hello team, materialx package, needed for Blender, is ready for review. Currently, python support is disabled for the time being as unsure where to fix the path. As pointed out, upstream failed to adhere to FHS standard so heavy use of sed -i is needed so patch may be needed to submit to upstr

Re: Package review ticket status change after approval

x27;d like to make a request and maybe make all reviewers aware > >> of a feature which was implemented some time ago. I've noticed many > >> reviewers change the ticket status from ASSIGNED to POST when they flag > >> the package as approved: I'd like to request to n

Re: Package review ticket status change after approval

ticed many >> reviewers change the ticket status from ASSIGNED to POST when they flag >> the package as approved: I'd like to request to not do that. >> >> The Package Review Tracker webpages make a distinction between packages >> approved (fedora-review fl

Re: Package review ticket status change after approval

ED to POST when they flag > the package as approved: I'd like to request to not do that. > > The Package Review Tracker webpages make a distinction between packages > approved (fedora-review flag set to +) and packages approved AND being > built in Fedora. That distinction relies on

Need help with a package review - BZ#2259602

Hello, Could someone please help to review this package request?   -> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259602 Thank you. ---   -Prasad -- ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lis

Package review ticket status change after approval

maybe make all reviewers aware of a feature which was implemented some time ago. I've noticed many reviewers change the ticket status from ASSIGNED to POST when they flag the package as approved: I'd like to request to not do that. The Package Review Tracker webpages make a distinction b

Re: Cached Package Review Tracker - Tickets that passed automated review

Hi Jakub, On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 09:33:37PM +0100, Jakub Kadlcik wrote: > Hello, > if you use the Cached Package Review Tracker > https://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/ > there is a new "feature" that you may find useful. > > Fedora Review Service runs the

Cached Package Review Tracker - Tickets that passed automated review

Hello, if you use the Cached Package Review Tracker https://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/ there is a new "feature" that you may find useful. Fedora Review Service runs the fedora-review tool on every new Bugzilla ticket. If no errors are found, the ticket is marked with a speci

Package review needed - swap welcome

Hi, to update Celestia package I need to add a new dependency celestia-data. The package review [1] was stuck waiting for a new license to be approved by SPDX upstream, which is happened recently [2]. The new license ("JPL-image") has not yet been added to the Fedora accepted list

Re: [Package Review] draco

On 2023-01-17 07:22, Arthur Bols wrote: On 15/01/2023 03:44, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: Hello team, draco package is ready for review. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2160996 The spec file was originally from UnitedRPM [1] which only needs a clean up to adhere to the packaging gui

Re: [Package Review] draco

On 15/01/2023 03:44, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: Hello team, draco package is ready for review. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2160996 The spec file was originally from UnitedRPM [1] which only needs a clean up to adhere to the packaging guideline. The library itself is useful for

[Package Review] draco

Hello team, draco package is ready for review. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2160996 The spec file was originally from UnitedRPM [1] which only needs a clean up to adhere to the packaging guideline. The library itself is useful for Blender to compress 3D geometry. Thanks in ad

GAP 4.12 and a package review swap

The gap package has a new version available (4.12), which comes with significant improvements over 4.11. I've been working on updating the entire gap stack [1] for the new version. The spec files have been simplified and made more uniform, which should aid future maintenance. I need one new packa

Re: Package review swap: ubdsrv - Userspace block driver server

On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 03:20:10PM -0500, Jonathan Wright via devel wrote: > Ah I see you got someone. > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 3:19 PM Jonathan Wright > wrote: > > I'll trade you for a basic Python package: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/ > show_bug.cgi?id=2121258 I've taken this one

Re: Package review swap: ubdsrv - Userspace block driver server

Ah I see you got someone. On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 3:19 PM Jonathan Wright wrote: > I'll trade you for a basic Python package: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121258 > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 6:56 AM Richard W.M. Jones > wrote: > >> >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_b

Re: Package review swap: ubdsrv - Userspace block driver server

I'll trade you for a basic Python package: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121258 On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 6:56 AM Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2122605 > > Pretty simple package, just a small library and a single tool. > > This bu

Package review swap: ubdsrv - Userspace block driver server

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2122605 Pretty simple package, just a small library and a single tool. This bug depends on a change to the Rawhide kernel configuration before it will work (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2122595) but I don't think that needs to get in the way of

Re: [Package Review] f37-backgrounds

On Sat, 2022-08-06 at 20:09 -0700, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: > Hello team, > > f37-backgrounds is ready for review for the incoming Fedora 37 Beta. > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2116103 Can we please get a sponsor to pick up and approve this ASAP? I don't see that any of t

Re: [Package Review] f37-backgrounds

Works now thanks :) https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/%40design-suite/fxx-backgrounds/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04708570-f37-backgrounds/ On Sun, Aug 7, 2022 at 11:18 AM Luna Jernberg wrote: > Hey Again! > > Got all the extras background showing up with this package but the defau

Re: [Package Review] f37-backgrounds

Hey Again! Got all the extras background showing up with this package but the default wallpaper, did not get installed or changed at all On Sun, Aug 7, 2022 at 10:21 AM Luna Jernberg wrote: > Hey! > > Will help test later today, coming back with results during the day > > On 8/7/22, Luya Tshimb

Re: [Package Review] f37-backgrounds

Hey! Will help test later today, coming back with results during the day On 8/7/22, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: > Hello team, > > f37-backgrounds is ready for review for the incoming Fedora 37 Beta. > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2116103 > > > Reviewer welcome. > > -- > Luya

[Package Review] f37-backgrounds

Hello team, f37-backgrounds is ready for review for the incoming Fedora 37 Beta. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2116103 Reviewer welcome. -- Luya Tshimbalanga Fedora Design Team Fedora Design Suite maintainer ___ devel mailing l

Re: Python package review

Yes, I requested the branches but then it slipped my mind. Thanks for the reminder; I’m preparing the initial updates for F36 and F35 now. – Ben On 7/11/22 21:23, Maxwell G wrote: On 22/07/12 12:28AM, chedi toueiti wrote: I'm looking for help review the following python packages needed by pyt

Re: Python package review

On 22/07/12 12:28AM, chedi toueiti wrote: > I'm looking for help review the following python packages needed by > python-jsonschema+format > > > python-rfc3339-validator: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2106174 @music already packaged this (I was the reviewer), but it seems he has

Re: Python package review

On 22/07/12 12:28AM, chedi toueiti wrote: > I'm looking for help review the following python packages needed by > python-jsonschema+format > > > python-rfc3339-validator: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2106174 @music already packaged this (I was the reviewer), but it seems he has

Python package review

Hi, I'm looking for help review the following python packages needed by python-jsonschema+format python-rfc3339-validator: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2106174 python-rfc3986-validator: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2106171 and let me know if you need some

Re: Simple C utility package review request

On 3/22/22 07:18, Miro Hrončok wrote: Anybody available to review this? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2066755 Happy to review a similar package or a Python package in return. I'm on the way! 🏃🏻‍♂️ -- Major Hayden OpenPGP_0x737051E0C1011FB1.asc Description: OpenPGP public key OpenPGP_signat

Simple C utility package review request

Anybody available to review this? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2066755 Happy to review a similar package or a Python package in return. Thanks, -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.or

Re: New package review

On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 6:49 PM Kaleb Keithley wrote: > > Hi, > > I need https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2054708 reviewed please. > > This is a pre-req dependency needed for new features in the next major > release of Ceph, i.e. Quincy. Grabbed it and left initial feedback. -- 真実

New package review

Hi, I need https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2054708 reviewed please. This is a pre-req dependency needed for new features in the next major release of Ceph, i.e. Quincy. Thanks -- Kaleb ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.

Re: Package review wanted - xterm-console

On Tue, Feb 01, 2022 at 11:38:41AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > Hi folks! Was wondering if any packager would be able to do a quick > package review for me: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2049236 > > It's a relatively small and simple package

Package review wanted - xterm-console

Hi folks! Was wondering if any packager would be able to do a quick package review for me: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2049236 It's a relatively small and simple package so it shouldn't be too hard, though it's slightly unusual both in terms of what it

Package Review / Sponsorship Request

Hi everyone, I’ve mpdecimal package need a re-review at  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2047796, but also I need help with a sponsor. Best Regards, Ali Erdinc Koroglu - Intel Finland Oy Registered Address: PL 281, 00

Re: Package Review / Sponsorship Request

On Thursday, 6 January 2022 09.02.02 WET Mark E. Fuller wrote: > Good day all, > > I have just submitted a review request > (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2037645) for Cantera, a > chemical kinetics, thermodynamics, and transport tool suite > (https://cantera.org/, > https://copr.fed

Package Review / Sponsorship Request

Good day all, I have just submitted a review request (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2037645) for Cantera, a chemical kinetics, thermodynamics, and transport tool suite (https://cantera.org/, https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/fuller/Cantera/). As this is my first package, I ap

Re: sdsl-lite package review

Hello Antonio, I'll take care of it. Till later, A. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of

sdsl-lite package review

Hi all. I need a packager for the review request of 'sdsl-lite' package. Open to review another package in turn. Regards. -- --- Antonio Trande Fedora Project mailto: sagit...@fedoraproject.org GPG key: 0xCC1CFEF30920C8AE GPG key server: https://keyserver1.pgp.com/ OpenPGP_0xCC1CFEF30920C8AE

Package review requests from games-sig

Forwarding following review requests on behalf of games SIG. Jan fas copperi From: Dennis Payne Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2021 3:51 PM To: Fedora Games Subject: [games-sig] Cataclysm: Dark Days Ahead Finally got the latest Cataclysm: Dark Days Ahead working.

spdrs60: package review swap

Hello all, I have a new package request: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2011964 , which needs to be reviewed. If anyone is interested in a review swap — feel free to take it, and I can review another package in return. Thanks! -- wbr, Denis.

Re: Cached Package Review Tracker

On 18/09/21 00:35, Jerry James wrote: > On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 4:32 PM Ben Beasley wrote: >> It was maimed by the 10-bug default limit in the recent Bugzilla upgrade. It >> looks like people are working on it: >> >> https://pagure.io/fedora-infra/review_stats/pull-request/13 >> >> https://pagure

Re: Cached Package Review Tracker

On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 4:32 PM Ben Beasley wrote: > It was maimed by the 10-bug default limit in the recent Bugzilla upgrade. It > looks like people are working on it: > > https://pagure.io/fedora-infra/review_stats/pull-request/13 > > https://pagure.io/fedora-infra/review_stats/pull-request/14

Re: Cached Package Review Tracker

It was maimed by the 10-bug default limit in the recent Bugzilla upgrade. It looks like people are working on it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infra/review_stats/pull-request/13 https://pagure.io/fedora-infra/review_stats/pull-request/14 On Fri, Sep 17, 2021, at 6:12 PM, Jerry James wrote: > What h

Cached Package Review Tracker

What happened to this page? https://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/ There are only a handful of reviews listed there. What happened to the rest? -- Jerry James http://www.jamezone.org/ ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To

golang package review swap

Hello, I've submitted a few packages I need reviewed. I'm happy to swap if anyone has any pending reviews. 1) 1976038 - golang-github-sgreben-flagvar[1] 2) 1976041 - golang-github-peterbourgon-ff-3[2] 3) 1976414 - mqttcli[3] 1: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1976038 2: https://bugz

NeuroFedora package review swap: python-lfpykit

Hi folks, One of our NeuroFedora packages has added a new dep in its new version, which FTBFS as a result. Would someone like to swap reviews please? 1976640 – Review Request: python-lfpykit - Electrostatic models for multicompartment neuron models https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1

Re: Requesting for package review and sponsor

On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 5:52 PM Ben Cotton wrote: > On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 6:10 AM Sumantro Mukherjee > wrote: > > > > [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1976464 > > > > I'll take the review. Sounds like an app I'd benefit from anyway. :-) > > Thanks a lot, Ben! -- //sumantro Fed

Re: Requesting for package review and sponsor

On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 6:10 AM Sumantro Mukherjee wrote: > > [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1976464 > I'll take the review. Sounds like an app I'd benefit from anyway. :-) -- Ben Cotton He / Him / His Fedora Program Manager Red Hat TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis ___

Requesting for package review and sponsor

Hey All, I am Sumantro and been working in Fedora's QA team for some time now. I have decided to try out packaging and maintain a few packages as well. I have taken a few steps of making a PR[0] and submitting one package for review[1]. It will be awesome if someone can review and also help me wit

Re: Approved package review requests still opened

Il 11/06/21 17:29, Miro Hrončok ha scritto: > On 11. 06. 21 17:27, Vít Ondruch wrote: >> I just wonder that since Bodhi is now used even for Rawhide builds and it >> supports keywords such as `Resolves: rhbz#123456`, is this reflected >> somewhere >> in guidelines? That could help to address the t

Re: Approved package review requests still opened

On 11. 06. 21 17:27, Vít Ondruch wrote: I just wonder that since Bodhi is now used even for Rawhide builds and it supports keywords such as `Resolves: rhbz#123456`, is this reflected somewhere in guidelines? That could help to address the two bullets above. I've tried to do that with the recen

Re: Approved package review requests still opened

Dne 11. 06. 21 v 17:19 Mattia Verga via devel napsal(a): Hello folks, I'm trying to clean up a bit the list of new package submissions. looking at https://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/in_progress.html there are over 300 old package review requests which are approved, but still o

Approved package review requests still opened

Hello folks, I'm trying to clean up a bit the list of new package submissions. looking at https://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/in_progress.html there are over 300 old package review requests which are approved, but still opened. I'm slowly reviewing them one by one, moving th

Re: Package review #1961174

On 5/18/21 3:19 PM, Antonio T. sagitter wrote: Hi all. I have a new package in review (rhbz#1961174) that will obsolete 'mld2p4' Please, take a look if you can; i'll review one in exchange. Thanks. I have started the review. In exchange could you review jpegxl: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/sh

Package review #1961174

Hi all. I have a new package in review (rhbz#1961174) that will obsolete 'mld2p4' Please, take a look if you can; i'll review one in exchange. Thanks. -- --- Antonio Trande Fedora Project mailto: sagit...@fedoraproject.org GPG key: 0x29FBC85D7A51CC2F GPG key server: https://keys.gnupg.net/ Op

fwupd-efi package review

Hi all, I'm wanting to update the fwupd package in Fedora rawhide to the recently released 1.6.0, but this release splits out the EFI binary to a new source package. I've created https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1953508 for the new package review process and would appreciate

Re: Automatizing package review process

ools for new packages process is > completely distinct from the workflow and tools for ongoing package > maint. > > Both new package process and ongoing maint look quite dated by modern > development standards but we have slowly been pulling dist-git into a > slightly more modern w

Re: Automatizing package review process

look quite dated by modern development standards but we have slowly been pulling dist-git into a slightly more modern world with the ability to have merge requests. I think we need todo the same with new package review process and make it align with the way ongoing package maint works, using the

Re: Automatizing package review process

On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 10:09:54AM -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > - Get rid of manually open and manage Bugzilla tickets. Have the ticket > > filed in a web form (or maybe by CLI), and have the ticket workflow > > managed automatically. > > Could we do away with using bugzilla entirely and just kee

Re: Automatizing package review process

On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 1:16 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > Could we do away with using bugzilla entirely and just keep info in app? > No. Well, "yes, but with some considerations." The main thing with the Bugzilla workflow is the ability to block the FE-LEGAL bug when a package needs a license or pate

Re: Automatizing package review process

Dne 22. 02. 21 v 19:09 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a): - When all tests pass, have the package repository automatically created in git, import the srpm and fire the build in Rawhide. This will ensure that what is approved is what is packaged - later changes will be tracked and noted. It will also avoid us

Re: Automatizing package review process

Il 22/02/21 19:09, Kevin Fenzi ha scritto: > On Sun, Feb 21, 2021 at 05:24:06PM +, Mattia Verga via devel wrote: >> Hello folks, >> >> during the last winter holidays I've started to write a new flask app to >> automatize the new package submission process. The goals of this app >> would be: >

Re: Automatizing package review process

On Sun, Feb 21, 2021 at 05:24:06PM +, Mattia Verga via devel wrote: > Hello folks, > > during the last winter holidays I've started to write a new flask app to > automatize the new package submission process. The goals of this app > would be: Awesome. Thanks for working on it! > - Get rid of

Re: Automatizing package review process

On Sun, 2021-02-21 at 17:24 +, Mattia Verga via devel wrote: > Hello folks, > > during the last winter holidays I've started to write a new flask app > to > automatize the new package submission process. The goals of this app > would be: > > - Get rid of manually open and manage Bugzilla tick

Automatizing package review process

Hello folks, during the last winter holidays I've started to write a new flask app to automatize the new package submission process. The goals of this app would be: - Get rid of manually open and manage Bugzilla tickets. Have the ticket filed in a web form (or maybe by CLI), and have the ticket w

Re: Package review sum-ump

ycollette.nos...@free.fr wrote: > I posted (by mistake) 2 packages review for this package ... > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1893711 > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887709 Then close one as a duplicate of the other. Because the newer one is assigned to a reviewer, it

Package review sum-ump

Hello, I little sum-up about the package review I submitted. Mamba: a virtual MIDI keyboard with also support playing SF2 soundfonts. I posted (by mistake) 2 packages review for this package ... https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1893711 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id

Re: Package Review: github-cli 1.1.0

On 10/27/20 10:47 AM, Joe Doss wrote: On 10/27/20 10:11 AM, Joe Doss wrote: On 10/16/20 11:21 AM, Joe Doss wrote: Hello all, Here is the updated package review request for github-cli 1.1.0 ... golang-github-cli-shurcool-graphql https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1888971 golang

Re: Package Review: github-cli 1.1.0

On 10/27/20 10:11 AM, Joe Doss wrote: On 10/16/20 11:21 AM, Joe Doss wrote: Hello all, Here is the updated package review request for github-cli 1.1.0 ... golang-github-cli-shurcool-graphql https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1888971 golang-github-shurcool-githubv4 https

Re: Package Review: github-cli 1.1.0

On 10/16/20 11:21 AM, Joe Doss wrote: Hello all, Here is the updated package review request for github-cli 1.1.0 ... golang-github-cli-shurcool-graphql https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1888971 golang-github-shurcool-githubv4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1888972

Package Review: github-cli 1.1.0

Hello all, Here is the updated package review request for github-cli 1.1.0 and the eleven dependency... Ooof. github-cli https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1803302#c8 golang-github-netflix-expect https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1803309 golang-github-hinshun-vt10x https

Metrics: Package updates each release and package review time

Hi all, CommOps received a request to build metrics for (1) what packages are updated every Fedora release, and (2) how long on average package reviews take; however, we do not have capacity to take this request. Per discussion at Nest, I am following up on Fedora Infrastructure list to explore if

Re: Need a package review (aml)

it's done - Thanks Aleksei! On Tue, 4 Aug 2020 at 12:02, Bob Hepple wrote: > > Hi, > > The upstream author of wayvnc (a VNC server for Wayland) has split > some code out into a separate tiny package (aml) for which I'm waiting > to get a review request done, since 28th July. > > I'm blocked from

Need a package review (aml)

Hi, The upstream author of wayvnc (a VNC server for Wayland) has split some code out into a separate tiny package (aml) for which I'm waiting to get a review request done, since 28th July. I'm blocked from packaging the new release wayvnc-0.2.0 until that one is done and I need to get that new ve

Re: Package Review SELinux help

On Monday, 29 June 2020 20:55:45 CEST Daniel Walsh wrote: > On 6/26/20 14:39, Robert-André Mauchin wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > I know next to nothing about SELinux so I'd like some help about the > > Bitcoin Package Review by ne

Re: Package Review SELinux help

On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 08:39:19PM +0200, Robert-André Mauchin wrote: > Hello, > > > I know next to nothing about SELinux so I'd like some help about the Bitcoin > Package Review by negativo17: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731 > > No

Re: Package Review SELinux help

On 6/26/20 14:39, Robert-André Mauchin wrote: > Hello, > > > I know next to nothing about SELinux so I'd like some help about the Bitcoin > Package Review by negativo17: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731 > > Notably: are the bitcoin.{te,f

Package Review SELinux help

Hello, I know next to nothing about SELinux so I'd like some help about the Bitcoin Package Review by negativo17: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731 Notably: are the bitcoin.{te,fc,if} files are sane? Are they installed properly in the SPEC? Especially these parts:

Re: Package Review for Mudita24

On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 11:06 AM wrote: > A week ago I requested a package review for Mudita24 > (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1836540), and Artur Iwicki > stepped-up and did a little bit of review. However, I have not heard from him > for a week now. > > If an

Package Review for Mudita24

Hi everyone, A week ago I requested a package review for Mudita24 (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1836540), and Artur Iwicki stepped-up and did a little bit of review. However, I have not heard from him for a week now. If anyone else can step-in, I’d be grateful. For a little

Re: New package review tickets page last update on 2020-04-06

On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 03:29:47PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 2:17 PM Guido Aulisi wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > the new package review tickets page [0] was last updated on 2020-04-06. > > New tickets are not displayed, I made a new revi

Re: New package review tickets page last update on 2020-04-06

On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 2:17 PM Guido Aulisi wrote: > > Hi, > > the new package review tickets page [0] was last updated on 2020-04-06. > New tickets are not displayed, I made a new review request on April 19 > and it never appeared on that page > > Is there anything not

New package review tickets page last update on 2020-04-06

Hi, the new package review tickets page [0] was last updated on 2020-04-06. New tickets are not displayed, I made a new review request on April 19 and it never appeared on that page Is there anything not working on auto updating that page? Ciao Guido FAS: tartina [0]: https://fedoraproject.org

OpenOSC package review request for Fedora

Hi Fedora developers, I have the below OpenOSC package review request for Fedora: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1812961 I wonder if somebody can help me with the package review to get it into Fedora. Also if somebody can sponsor me, it would be greatly appreciated! Thanks

Re: Preparing for OpenVPN 3 package review

On 19.02.2020 09:32, Tom Hughes wrote: > In this case I believe that although the client is intended to be > protocol compatible with openvpn 2 it's basically an entirely new > program with a totally different architecture and user interface > so parallel packaging seems reasonable. I think it wil

Re: Preparing for OpenVPN 3 package review

Dne 19. 02. 20 v 9:32 Tom Hughes napsal(a): > On 19/02/2020 07:05, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: >> On 18.02.2020 22:29, David Sommerseth wrote: >>> We released the OpenVPN 3 Linux v8 beta release early last week [0], >>> with the >>> Fedora Copr repository [1] updated as well.  Now things are w

  1   2   3   4   >