Review requests: mingw-directxmath, python-jsonformatter

Hi I'd apprechiate a review of the following two packages: - mingw-directxmath: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2268585 (required for mingw-gstreamer1-plugins-bad-free 1.24.0) - python-jsonformatter: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2268579 (required

Re: Review requests: gtksourceviewmm3, mingw-qt6-qtlocation

Hi Sandro, I see someone took gtksourceviewmm3, can you swap for apache-logging-parent please? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2214834 Also unretirement; bump to latest upstream version. It is a parent POM for metadata so it is a simple one. Cheers, Chris On Thu, 15 Jun 2023 at 08:1

Review requests: gtksourceviewmm3, mingw-qt6-qtlocation

Hi I'd appreciate a review of the following packages: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2215251 - gtksourceviewmm3 - Review to revive retired package, which I need as a dependency for gimagereader https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2211959 - mingw-qt6-qtlocation - Review

Review requests: python-flask-mailman, python-flask-mongoengine, mingw-gsettings-desktop-schemas

Hi I'd appreciate review of the following packages: Needed for updating python-flask-security-too (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2171671): - python-flask-mailman: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2184588 - python-flask-mongoengine: https://bugzilla.redhat.c

Re: Review requests: perl-Feature-Compat-Class, perl-Feature-Compat-Try (needed for licensecheck update)

On 6/01/2023 13:47, Sandro Mani wrote: Hi licensecheck-3.3.1 grew two new dependencies, reviews here: perl-Feature-Compat-Class: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2158741 perl-Feature-Compat-Try: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2158742 Happy to review

Review requests: perl-Feature-Compat-Class, perl-Feature-Compat-Try (needed for licensecheck update)

Hi licensecheck-3.3.1 grew two new dependencies, reviews here: perl-Feature-Compat-Class: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2158741 perl-Feature-Compat-Try: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2158742 Happy to review in exchange. Thanks Sandro ___

Re: Review requests: mingw-python-pip, mingw-python-wheel, mingw-pyproject-rpm-macros

Hi I'd still appreciate a review of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2136236 - mingw-python-flit-core It is the last dependency required to finish the effort of landing mingw-python-3.11 in rawhide. Thanks! Sandro On 19.10.22 19:32, Sandro Mani wrote: Hi Based on t

Re: Review requests: mingw-python-pip, mingw-python-wheel, mingw-pyproject-rpm-macros

Hi Based on the discussion in #2134021 (mingw-pyproject-rpm-macros review), I've abbandoned the pyproject approach and instead switched to python-build + python-installer. For this, I'd need the following new packages reviewed: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2136235 -

Review requests: mingw-python-pip, mingw-python-wheel, mingw-pyproject-rpm-macros

Hi To bring the mingw python build macros on par with the native python package, I'd need the following reviewed: * mingw-python-pip: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2134019 * mingw-python-wheel: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2134020 * mingw-pyproj

Review requests: mingw-qt6-qtwebchannel, mingw-qt6-qttranslations

Hi I've got two more mingw-qt6-* packages which are up for review, both are straight forward mingw/c++ packages. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2009269 - mingw-qt6-qtwebchannel https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2070708 - mingw-qt6-qttranslations Hap

Re: Review requests

On 17.02.22 18:36, Mattia Verga via devel wrote: Il 15/02/22 11:15, Sandro Mani ha scritto: Hi I've submitted the two packages which are missing dependencies for review, which I'd appreciate if someone could review, as mingw-python-requests and mingw-python-OWSLib are currently FailsToInst

Re: Review requests

Il 15/02/22 11:15, Sandro Mani ha scritto: > Hi > > I've submitted the two packages which are missing dependencies for review, > which I'd appreciate if someone could review, as mingw-python-requests and > mingw-python-OWSLib are currently FailsToInstall: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla

Review requests

Hi I've submitted the two packages which are missing dependencies for review, which I'd appreciate if someone could review, as mingw-python-requests and mingw-python-OWSLib are currently FailsToInstall: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2053753 - mingw-python-charset-norma

Review requests: mingw-python-tomli, mingw-qt6-qt5compat, mingw-qt6-qtwebchannel

Hi I have the following packages up for review: - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2044188 - mingw-python-tomli - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2043485 - mingw-qt6-qt5compat - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2009269 - mingw-qt6-q

Re: Review requests: 4x python-flask-* packages

I will review these. – Ben On 12/23/21 05:54, Sandro Mani wrote: Hi I have the following packages pending review: python-flask-gravatar - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2033804 python-flask-paranoid - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2033803 python-flask-prin

Review requests: 4x python-flask-* packages

Hi I have the following packages pending review: python-flask-gravatar - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2033804 python-flask-paranoid - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2033803 python-flask-principal - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203380

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

Re: Review requests: four python packages to update mkdocs

Hi I'd still need python-gph-import (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2000349) to be reviewed as the last dependency to be able to update mkdocs. Thanks Sandro On 02.09.21 00:51, Sandro Mani wrote: Hi To update to the current version of mkdocs, I'd need these four dependencies

Re: Review requests: four python packages to update mkdocs

On 02.09.21 02:13, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 02. 09. 21 0:51, Sandro Mani wrote: Hi To update to the current version of mkdocs, I'd need these four dependencies reviewed: - python-mkdocs-redirects: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2000347 - python-pyyaml_env_tag: https://

Re: Review requests: four python packages to update mkdocs

On 02.09.21 11:43, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 02. 09. 21 11:33, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 02. 09. 21 11:31, Sandro Mani wrote: On 02.09.21 11:16, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 02. 09. 21 10:14, Sandro Mani wrote: On 02.09.21 02:13, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 02. 09. 21 0:51, Sandro Mani wrote: Hi To updat

Re: Review requests: four python packages to update mkdocs

On 02. 09. 21 11:33, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 02. 09. 21 11:31, Sandro Mani wrote: On 02.09.21 11:16, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 02. 09. 21 10:14, Sandro Mani wrote: On 02.09.21 02:13, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 02. 09. 21 0:51, Sandro Mani wrote: Hi To update to the current version of mkdocs, I'd n

Re: Review requests: four python packages to update mkdocs

On 02. 09. 21 11:31, Sandro Mani wrote: On 02.09.21 11:16, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 02. 09. 21 10:14, Sandro Mani wrote: On 02.09.21 02:13, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 02. 09. 21 0:51, Sandro Mani wrote: Hi To update to the current version of mkdocs, I'd need these four dependencies reviewed: -

Re: Review requests: four python packages to update mkdocs

On 02.09.21 11:16, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 02. 09. 21 10:14, Sandro Mani wrote: On 02.09.21 02:13, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 02. 09. 21 0:51, Sandro Mani wrote: Hi To update to the current version of mkdocs, I'd need these four dependencies reviewed: - python-mkdocs-redirects: https://bugzil

Re: Review requests: four python packages to update mkdocs

On 02. 09. 21 10:14, Sandro Mani wrote: Hmm in the case of python-pyyaml_env_tag See also https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_library_naming ...The Fedora package’s name SHOULD contain the Canonical project name. If possible, the project name SHOULD be the

Re: Review requests: four python packages to update mkdocs

On 02. 09. 21 10:14, Sandro Mani wrote: On 02.09.21 02:13, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 02. 09. 21 0:51, Sandro Mani wrote: Hi To update to the current version of mkdocs, I'd need these four dependencies reviewed: - python-mkdocs-redirects: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20

Re: Review requests: four python packages to update mkdocs

On 02.09.21 02:13, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 02. 09. 21 0:51, Sandro Mani wrote: Hi To update to the current version of mkdocs, I'd need these four dependencies reviewed: - python-mkdocs-redirects: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2000347 - python-pyyaml_env_tag: https://b

Re: Review requests: four python packages to update mkdocs

On 02. 09. 21 0:51, Sandro Mani wrote: Hi To update to the current version of mkdocs, I'd need these four dependencies reviewed: - python-mkdocs-redirects: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2000347 - python-pyyaml_env_tag: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi

Review requests: four python packages to update mkdocs

Hi To update to the current version of mkdocs, I'd need these four dependencies reviewed: - python-mkdocs-redirects: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2000347 - python-pyyaml_env_tag: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2000348 - python-ghp-import: https:

Re: Review requests: perl-Regexp-Pattern-DefHash, mingw-Imath, {mingw-python-}pyephem, mingw-qt6-*

On 31.07.21 14:57, Richard Shaw wrote: On Sat, Jul 31, 2021 at 6:26 AM Sandro Mani > wrote: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1988364 - mingw-Imath: needed to update to mingw-openexr 3.x I

Re: Review requests: perl-Regexp-Pattern-DefHash, mingw-Imath, {mingw-python-}pyephem, mingw-qt6-*

On Sat, Jul 31, 2021 at 6:26 AM Sandro Mani wrote: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1988364 - mingw-Imath: > needed to update to mingw-openexr 3.x > I can take Imath since I'm the non-mingw maintainer as long as you're not in a hurry. I'm still on vacation for a few more days. Than

Review requests: perl-Regexp-Pattern-DefHash, mingw-Imath, {mingw-python-}pyephem, mingw-qt6-*

Hi I'd appreciate reviews of the following packages: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1985637 - perl-Regexp-Pattern-DefHash: needed to update perl-Hash-DefHash https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1988364 - mingw-Imath: needed to update to mingw-openexr 3.x https://bugzilla.r

orphan apache-ivy and 2 java Review Requests

Hi, [1] apache-ivy is only required by ivy-local from javapackages-tools- 6.0.0~alpha-7.fc35.src.rpm apache-ivy is a FTBFS on rawhide https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/work/tasks/6387/71866387/build.log I'd bring back to Fedora fedora-review-plugin-java Review Request: fedora-review-plugin-ja

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: Review requests: virt-backup & chunkfs

Hau idatzi du Richard Shaw (hobbes1...@gmail.com) erabiltzaileak (2020 abe. 5, lr. (17:47)): > > Two pretty simple review requests. Reviewed & approved ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email t

Review requests: virt-backup & chunkfs

Two pretty simple review requests. I recently got introduced to chunkfs on the BackupPC mailing list. It's a neat little program that creates a FUSE filesystem breaking up a large file into chunks of a specified size. Why is this important? Well BackupPC is great for compression and deduplic

Review requests: librttopo, libxslxwriter, virtualpg

Hi Next up on my todo list, updating spatialite-gui, which adds three dependencies which needed packaging: - librttopo: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1897734 - libxslxwriter: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1897735 - virtualpg: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi

Re: Autoclosure of review requests?

On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 12:07 PM Mattia Verga via devel wrote: > > Ben, the review-stats app is ready to do some automatic "cleanup": > > https://pagure.io/fedora-infra/review_stats/pull-request/6 > This looks awesome! > The Pull Request was merged in the master branch, but I have not yet > deplo

Re: Autoclosure of review requests?

Il 26/06/20 16:27, Ben Cotton ha scritto: > > Nope! The lukewarm reaction and subsequent *guestures at the state > of the world* moved this to the bottom of the stack. It's still on my > todo list for some point in the future. > Ben, the review-stats app is ready to do some automatic "cleanup":

Re: Autoclosure of review requests?

On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 9:03 AM Robert-André Mauchin wrote: > > Any news on that? Nope! The lukewarm reaction and subsequent *guestures at the state of the world* moved this to the bottom of the stack. It's still on my todo list for some point in the future. > Dropping requests on the last c

Re: Autoclosure of review requests?

On Monday, 24 February 2020 23:04:26 CEST Ben Cotton wrote: > In the weekly Fedora program update that I publish on > communityblog.fedoraproject.org, I have started to include a count of the > open package review requests. As of this moment, there are ~1300 open > review requests. S

review requests/intent to unretire kpcli requirements perl-Crypt-ECB and perl-Crypt-PWSafe3

I'm in the process of unretiring perl-crypt-ECB and perl-Crypt-PWSafe3 that are requirements of kpcli. I could use some help with reviews: [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1835258 [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1835263 Thank you. _

Re: Autoclosure of review requests?

Il 24/02/20 23:04, Ben Cotton ha scritto: > In the weekly Fedora program update that I publish on > communityblog.fedoraproject.org, I have started to include a count of the > open package review requests. As of this moment, there are ~1300 open review > requests. Some of these we

Re: Autoclosure of review requests?

On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 05:04:26PM -0500, Ben Cotton wrote: > The usual Bugzilla housekeeping (branching, EOL closure, etc) explicitly > excludes review request bugs. Having a large number of open, ancient review > requests isn't exactly harmful, but it's not very helpful ei

Re: Autoclosure of review requests?

On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 3:43 PM Ben Cotton wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 24, 2020, 17:32 Fabio Valentini wrote: >> >> >> It sounds like you are both not aware that there's actually an >> existing policy that covers stalled Review Re

Re: Autoclosure of review requests?

On Mon, Feb 24, 2020, 17:32 Fabio Valentini wrote: > > It sounds like you are both not aware that there's actually an > existing policy that covers stalled Review Requests: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews Ah ha! I thought I remembered seeing

Re: Autoclosure of review requests?

On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 11:23 PM Iñaki Ucar wrote: > > On Mon, 24 Feb 2020 at 23:13, Ben Cotton wrote: > > > > In the weekly Fedora program update that I publish on > > communityblog.fedoraproject.org, I have started to include a count of the > > open package revi

Re: Autoclosure of review requests?

On Mon, 24 Feb 2020 at 23:13, Ben Cotton wrote: > > In the weekly Fedora program update that I publish on > communityblog.fedoraproject.org, I have started to include a count of the > open package review requests. As of this moment, there are ~1300 open review > requests. Som

Autoclosure of review requests?

In the weekly Fedora program update that I publish on communityblog.fedoraproject.org, I have started to include a count of the open package review requests. As of this moment, there are ~1300 open review requests. Some of these were opened in 2006. The usual Bugzilla housekeeping (branching, EOL

Review requests: perl-Array-IntSpan, commoncpp2

Hi I'd appreciate review of the following two packages: - perl-Array-IntSpan [1]: yet another dependency pulled in by licensecheck (sigh...) - commoncpp2 [2]: re-review, missed it being retired a couple of months ago, needed by ccrtp and hence by many telephony applications (twinkle, sflphone

Review requests: various perl modules (for licensecheck and perl-Regexp-Pattern-License update)

Hi To update licensecheck and perl-Regexp-Pattern-License, I need a number of new dependencies packaged: For updating perl-Regexp-Pattern-License (dependency chain in this order, leaf first): * perl-String-Trim-More - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1788157 * perl-Hash-DefHash

Review requests: mingw-python3, mingw-qtkeychain, mingw-qca

Hi I'd appreciate review of the following three packages: - mingw-python3: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1704258 - mingw-qtkeychain: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1705064 - mingw-qca: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1705065 First one is just the current

Re: Multiple Review Requests for one source package?

Ok, so just to close the loop on this thread, I gave up on trying to fix the setuptools bug when using --root and have moved on to s straight cmake build. Because the packages have a dependency chain I have to do fake installs in %build passing CMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX to be somewhere in the build tre

Re: Multiple Review Requests for one source package?

On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 6:41 AM Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski < domi...@greysector.net> wrote: > Hello, Richard. > On Wednesday, 20 March 2019 at 14:44, Richard Shaw wrote: > > I have worked around this temporarily by skipping %build and just > > performing the install which also automatically pe

Re: Multiple Review Requests for one source package?

Hello, Richard. On Wednesday, 20 March 2019 at 14:44, Richard Shaw wrote: > With PySide2 shiboken2, pyside2, and pyside2-tools are provided in one big > source archive. > > I'm working on packaging it[1] but the provided setuptools build system > calls CMake to perform builds and essentially fake

Multiple Review Requests for one source package?

With PySide2 shiboken2, pyside2, and pyside2-tools are provided in one big source archive. I'm working on packaging it[1] but the provided setuptools build system calls CMake to perform builds and essentially fakeroot installs for build dependencies between the three projects and then uses setupto

Re: Package review requests: Splitting the "sustmi" GNOME Shell extensions into separate packages

Andrew Toskin wrote: > One more time: both of the newly split packages have been marked as > approved on Bugzilla, but I can't get anyone to do whatever final approval > is needed for the old "sustmi" GNOME Shell extensions to become two > separate packages in Fedora. I started this process back i

Re: Package review requests: Splitting the "sustmi" GNOME Shell extensions into separate packages

re.io/releng/issue/7124 > > I've also executed `fedpkg retire ...` for the old package on EPEL7, f27, and > master. > And the package review requests for the newly split packages have passed. The > Bugzilla > threads are here: > > * HistoryManager Prefix Search -- &g

Review requests: mingw-qt5-qtserialport, mingw-qt5-qtcharts, mingw-twaindsm

Hi Another bunch of mingw packages: * mingw-qt5-qtserialport: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1526479 * mingw-qt5-qtcharts: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1526480 * mingw-twaindsm: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1526481 Should be pretty straight forward

Re: Review requests: enchant2, mingw-enchant2

On 14.12.2017 11:35, Charalampos Stratakis wrote: - Original Message - From: "Sandro Mani" To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 10:57:22 PM Subject: Review requests: enchant2, mingw-enchant2 Hi I've posted

Re: Review requests: enchant2, mingw-enchant2

- Original Message - > From: "Sandro Mani" > To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" > > Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 10:57:22 PM > Subject: Review requests: enchant2, mingw-enchant2 > > Hi > > I've posted reviews for

Review requests: enchant2, mingw-enchant2

Hi I've posted reviews for enchant2 and mingw-enchant2: - enchant2: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1525706 - mingw-enchant2: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1525707 These are parallel-installable to the enchant-1.x packages. Happy to review in exhange. Sandro ___

Re: Package review requests: Splitting the "sustmi" GNOME Shell extensions into separate packages

f27, and master. And the package review requests for the newly split packages have passed. The Bugzilla threads are here: * HistoryManager Prefix Search -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1506428 * WindowOverlay Icons -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1506429 I *think* I m

Review requests: mingw-vulkan, mingw-uriparser, mingw-libkml, mingw-djvulibre

Hi I've got four mingw packages up for review: - mingw-vulkan: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507606 - mingw-uriparser: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507604 - mingw-libkml: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507605 - mingw-djvulibre: https://bugzilla.red

Package review requests: Splitting the "sustmi" GNOME Shell extensions into separate packages

procedure. This wiki page https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upgrade_paths_%E2%80%94_renaming_or_splitting_packages talks at first about *font* packages, but otherwise seems relevant. So, I've started by splitting and updating the spec files, and creating these review requests. As I understand

Re: Review requests: perl-Regexp-Pattern, perl-Regexp-Pattern-License

Am 18.08.2017 um 12:35 schrieb Sandro Mani: Hi I needs these simple perl packages reviewed to fix broken dependencies introduced in licensecheck-3.0.31 (the reason it actually built successfully was that licensecheck-3.0.30 actually provided perl(Regexp::Pattern::License), fact which I missed

Review requests: perl-Regexp-Pattern, perl-Regexp-Pattern-License

Hi I needs these simple perl packages reviewed to fix broken dependencies introduced in licensecheck-3.0.31 (the reason it actually built successfully was that licensecheck-3.0.30 actually provided perl(Regexp::Pattern::License), fact which I missed, but now 3.0.31 can't be installed since it

Re: package review requests

hi Il 05/03/2016 21:40, Mukundan Ragavan ha scritto: Hello all, I have submitted two packages for review. I trust both these reviews are fairly straightforward. 1/ python-nmrglue This is a python module for processing nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) data. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bu

package review requests

Hello all, I have submitted two packages for review. I trust both these reviews are fairly straightforward. 1/ python-nmrglue This is a python module for processing nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) data. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315020 2/ xfpanel-switch This is a simple

Re: Multiple review requests without sponsor

On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 21:05:12 + Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 03:43:16PM -0500, Brandon Thomas wrote: > > Can I make multiple review requests while I'm waiting for a > > sponsor? > Yes, you should. It actually helps, because >

Re: Multiple review requests without sponsor

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 03:43:16PM -0500, Brandon Thomas wrote: > Can I make multiple review requests while I'm waiting for a sponsor? Yes, you should. It actually helps, because a) you show that you are a capable packager, b) it's easier for potential sponsors to find a package th

Multiple review requests without sponsor

Can I make multiple review requests while I'm waiting for a sponsor? And I should add the FE_NEEDSPONSOR block onto the new one as well, right? Regards, Brandon Thomas -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Review requests that need reviewers

On 11/09/2015 09:19 PM, gil wrote: > Hi Tom, > Taken! > can you take these for me > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=995433 > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=995435 > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=995444 > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258274 > ht

Re: Review requests that need reviewers

Hi Tom, Taken! can you take these for me https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=995433 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=995435 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=995444 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258274 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266805

Review requests that need reviewers

The easy ones (some R packages I need as deps for updating R-DBI): https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277933 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277956 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277961 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277966 https://bugzilla.redhat.

Re: Review requests: netgen-mesher, tcl-togl

On 12.06.2014 16:29, Mukundan Ragavan wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 06/11/2014 07:07 PM, Sandro Mani wrote: Hi, For the ongoing effort to package salome/code-aster, I need these two dependencies: - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108395 - netgen-mesher

Re: Review requests: netgen-mesher, tcl-togl

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 06/11/2014 07:07 PM, Sandro Mani wrote: > Hi, > > For the ongoing effort to package salome/code-aster, I need these > two dependencies: > > - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108395 - > netgen-mesher - Somewhat complexish, autotools,

Review requests: netgen-mesher, tcl-togl

Hi, For the ongoing effort to package salome/code-aster, I need these two dependencies: - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108395 - netgen-mesher - Somewhat complexish, autotools, mpi subpackages - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108355 - tcl-togl - Easy review, tcl/

Re: Self-Introduction / Review requests: ocaml dependencies of 0install

Thanks to Jerry James, I'm down to three reviews that needs to be done for the 0install update. any taker appreciate, will review any of your requests in exchange. Best regards, ~ michel On 01/20/2014 02:57 PM, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote: > > * ocaml-xmlm - A streaming XML codec > https://b

Re: Package Review Requests for Hadoop dependencies

Il 12/06/2013 19:04, Björn Esser ha scritto: Am Mittwoch, den 12.06.2013, 12:54 -0400 schrieb Tim St Clair: Many thanks Björn! It looks like we are green on dependencies! "for now" ;-) Cheers, Tim Hi Tim! You're welcome! If there are any further reviews or pkgs needed during intergration of

Re: Package Review Requests for Hadoop dependencies

Am Mittwoch, den 12.06.2013, 12:54 -0400 schrieb Tim St Clair: > Many thanks Björn! > > It looks like we are green on dependencies! > "for now" ;-) > > Cheers, > Tim Hi Tim! You're welcome! If there are any further reviews or pkgs needed during intergration of hadoop, just feel free to ask m

Re: Package Review Requests for Hadoop dependencies

Many thanks Björn! It looks like we are green on dependencies! "for now" ;-)   Cheers, Tim - Original Message - > From: "Björn Esser" > To: "gil" > Cc: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 1:35:50 PM > Su

Re: Package Review Requests for Hadoop dependencies

On Tue, 11 Jun, 2013 at 18:16:24 GMT, gil wrote: > boost problems > any ideas? > thanks If this hasn't been resolved yet, 1.53 and newer have dropped include directives from other headers and it needs to be included in the file(s) that use them. --Ben -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedora

Re: Package Review Requests for Hadoop dependencies

Am Dienstag, den 11.06.2013, 20:16 +0200 schrieb gil: > hi > yes , many thanks Björn > have some trouble with boost with bookkeeper > > data.cpp:249:3: error: 'lock_guard' is not a member of 'boost' > boost::lock_guard lock(mutex); > ^ > data.cpp:249:33: error: expected primary-expression

Re: Package Review Requests for Hadoop dependencies

), boost problems any ideas? thanks Il 11/06/2013 19:53, Tim St Clair ha scritto: Many thanks Björn! - Original Message - From: "Björn Esser" To: "Robert Rati" Cc: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org, bigd...@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 10:23:12 A

Re: Package Review Requests for Hadoop dependencies

Many thanks Björn! - Original Message - > From: "Björn Esser" > To: "Robert Rati" > Cc: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org, bigd...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 10:23:12 AM > Subject: Re: Package Review Requests for Hadoop de

Re: Package Review Requests for Hadoop dependencies

48589) > >> groovy (BZ858127) > >> jets3t (BZ847109) > >> jspc-compiler (BZ960720) > >> maven-native (BZ864084) > >> zookeeper (BZ823122) > >> > >> One of those packages also has a dependency which also needs to be > >> reviewed

Re: Package Review Requests for Hadoop dependencies

(BZ823122) One of those packages also has a dependency which also needs to be reviewed: jtoaster (zookeeper, BZ957337) If we are to get hadoop into Fedora 20 we need some movement on the review requests for these packages. Would anyone, or a group of people, be willing to review these packages a

Re: Package Review Requests for Hadoop dependencies

hi, * maven-native (BZ864084) submitted as update in F18 and F19 * groovy18 (BZ858127) in progress * jets3t (BZ847109) in progress * jtoaster (BZ957337)submitted as update in F18 and F19 regards gil -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https

Package Review Requests for Hadoop dependencies

ovement on the review requests for these packages. Would anyone, or a group of people, be willing to review these packages and help us get them into Fedora? Rob -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Aw: Re: Review requests for guayadeque-0.3.6-svn1830

Gesendet: Dienstag, 04. September 2012 um 08:18 Uhr Von: "Brendan Jones" An: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Betreff: Re: Review requests for guayadeque-0.3.6-svn1830 On 09/03/2012 01:05 PM, Matthias Runge wrote: > > > > I can take this on and add to the FedoraAudio tra

Re: Review requests for guayadeque-0.3.6-svn1830

On 09/03/2012 01:05 PM, Matthias Runge wrote: Martin Gansser schrieb: Hi all, I've just packaged guayadeque - A Audio player and organizer. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853553 Descripition : Guayadeque is a music management program designed for all music enthusiasts. It is F

Re: Review requests for guayadeque-0.3.6-svn1830

Martin Gansser schrieb: >Hi all, > >I've just packaged guayadeque - A Audio player and organizer. >https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853553 > >Descripition : Guayadeque is a music management program designed for >all music enthusiasts. >It is Full Featured Linux media player that can

Review requests for guayadeque-0.3.6-svn1830

Hi all, I've just packaged guayadeque - A Audio player and organizer. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853553 Descripition : Guayadeque is a music management program designed for all music enthusiasts. It is Full Featured Linux media player that can easily manage large collections an

Fwd: Package review requests related with pdfmod

Hi: pdfmod is just one package of distance to get into F18 since the two dependencies are now approved. Someone want to review it? -- Forwarded message -- From: Ismael Olea Date: Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 1:16 PM Subject: Package review requests related with pdfmod To: Development

Package review requests related with pdfmod

-- Forwarded message -- From: Ismael Olea Date: Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 1:31 PM Subject: Package review requests To: Fedora-Mono Hi: I adopted this packages and need the peer reviews: - pdfmod: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834552 - poppler-sharp https

Re: Review requests for tntnet

On 02/07/12 09:38, Martin Gansser wrote: > Hi all, > > I've just packaged tntnet - A web application server for web applications. > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821224 > tntnet is needed for vdr-live - An interactive web interface for VDR > > can someone review this package ? > Unt

Review requests for tntnet

Hi all, I've just packaged tntnet - A web application server for web applications. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821224 tntnet is needed for vdr-live - An interactive web interface for VDR can someone review this package ? Until now, no response from recent reviewer, can someone tak

  1   2   >