Spec URL: <spec info here> SRPM URL: https://github.com/timlau/dnf-daemon/releases/download/dnfdaemon-0.3.1-1/dnfdaemon-0.3.1-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: Dbus daemon for dnf package actions Fedora Account System Username: timlau
Spec URL: https://github.com/timlau/dnf-daemon/blob/master/dnfdaemon.spec
@Denis, hope you will have time to review this soon :)
I've planned it to do on Saturday ;-) So here is it. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines ===== 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: "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 12 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mock/sandbox/test/dnfdaemon/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.3/site-packages/dnfdaemon, /usr/lib/python3.3/site-packages/dnfdaemon/server [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.3/site- packages/dnfdaemon, /usr/lib/python3.3/site-packages/dnfdaemon/server [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. [x]: 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 3 files. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines Note: Github path policy [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [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 %doc. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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]: 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 do not use a name that already exist [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 Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag Note: Could not download Source0: https://github.com/timlau/dnf- daemon/archive/dnfdaemon-0.3.1.tar.gz See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags [x]: 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). Note: ignoring F20 "dnf" version error since F21 already includes a proper one. Otherwise everything's fine: https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/python3-dnf [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-dnfdaemon [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-]: 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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [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: Mock build failed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint Note: build is fine and install in F21 will be, too. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 1.1.41 starting... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins Start: run Mock Version: 1.1.41 INFO: Mock Version: 1.1.41 Start: lock buildroot INFO: installing package(s): /home/mock/sandbox/test/dnfdaemon/results/dnfdaemon-0.3.1-1.fc20.noarch.rpm /home/mock/sandbox/test/dnfdaemon/results/python3-dnfdaemon-0.3.1-1.fc20.noarch.rpm /home/mock/sandbox/test/dnfdaemon/results/python3-dnfdaemon-client-0.3.1-1.fc20.noarch.rpm /home/mock/sandbox/test/dnfdaemon/results/python-dnfdaemon-client-0.3.1-1.fc20.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # ['/usr/bin/yum', '--installroot', '/var/lib/mock/fedora-20-x86_64/root/', '--releasever', '20', 'install', '/home/mock/sandbox/test/dnfdaemon/results/dnfdaemon-0.3.1-1.fc20.noarch.rpm', '/home/mock/sandbox/test/dnfdaemon/results/python3-dnfdaemon-0.3.1-1.fc20.noarch.rpm', '/home/mock/sandbox/test/dnfdaemon/results/python3-dnfdaemon-client-0.3.1-1.fc20.noarch.rpm', '/home/mock/sandbox/test/dnfdaemon/results/python-dnfdaemon-client-0.3.1-1.fc20.noarch.rpm', '--setopt=tsflags=nocontexts'] Error: Package: dnfdaemon-0.3.1-1.fc20.noarch (/dnfdaemon-0.3.1-1.fc20.noarch) Requires: python3-dnf >= 0.6.1 Available: python3-dnf-0.4.8-1.fc20.noarch (fedora) python3-dnf = 0.4.8-1.fc20 Available: python3-dnf-0.5.4-2.fc20.noarch (updates) python3-dnf = 0.5.4-2.fc20 You could try using --skip-broken to work around the problem You could try running: rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest -- as said above, we can ignore installation error in F20 environment, since it's proven to be fine with F21 (but sadly I don't have fedora-review suite there.) Rpmlint ------- Checking: dnfdaemon-0.3.1-1.fc20.noarch.rpm python3-dnfdaemon-0.3.1-1.fc20.noarch.rpm python3-dnfdaemon-client-0.3.1-1.fc20.noarch.rpm python-dnfdaemon-client-0.3.1-1.fc20.noarch.rpm dnfdaemon-0.3.1-1.fc20.src.rpm dnfdaemon.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) DBus -> D Bus, DB us, DB-us dnfdaemon.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dnf -> def, inf, DNA dnfdaemon.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Dbus -> Bus, D bus, Dubs dnfdaemon.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dnf -> def, inf, DNA dnfdaemon.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/dbus-1/system.d/org.baseurl.DnfSystem.conf python3-dnfdaemon.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libs -> lobs, lib, lbs python3-dnfdaemon.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C dnfdaemon python support libs python3-dnfdaemon.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libs -> lobs, lib, lbs python3-dnfdaemon.noarch: W: no-documentation python3-dnfdaemon-client.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) api -> pi, ape, apt python3-dnfdaemon-client.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dnf -> def, inf, DNA python3-dnfdaemon-client.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US api -> pi, ape, apt python3-dnfdaemon-client.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dnf -> def, inf, DNA python3-dnfdaemon-client.noarch: W: no-documentation python-dnfdaemon-client.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) api -> pi, ape, apt python-dnfdaemon-client.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dnf -> def, inf, DNA python-dnfdaemon-client.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US api -> pi, ape, apt python-dnfdaemon-client.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dnf -> def, inf, DNA python-dnfdaemon-client.noarch: W: no-documentation dnfdaemon.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) DBus -> D Bus, DB us, DB-us dnfdaemon.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dnf -> def, inf, DNA dnfdaemon.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Dbus -> Bus, D bus, Dubs dnfdaemon.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dnf -> def, inf, DNA dnfdaemon.src: W: invalid-url Source0: https://github.com/timlau/dnf-daemon/archive/dnfdaemon-0.3.1.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 24 warnings. Requires -------- python3-dnfdaemon-client (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): dnfdaemon python(abi) python3-gobject python-dnfdaemon-client (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): dnfdaemon pygobject3 python(abi) dnfdaemon (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /usr/bin/python3 policycoreutils-python polkit python3-dbus python3-dnf python3-dnfdaemon python3-dnfdaemon (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3-gobject Provides -------- python3-dnfdaemon-client: python3-dnfdaemon-client python-dnfdaemon-client: python-dnfdaemon-client dnfdaemon: dnfdaemon python3-dnfdaemon: python3-dnfdaemon Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --rpm-spec -n dnfdaemon-0.3.1-1.fc21.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-20-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG Remarks: -------- 1) Source0 isn't usable. Please note that there is also a policy for Github source URLs: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Github I personally find it unusable but since it's actual we should follow it; 2) Fix problems marked above in the review, and some rpmlint warnings (e.g., on non-conffile). You may also improve that summary to be more consistent; 3) Small nit-picking: a little changelog cleanup is desired. Three combined items and unneeded gaps between aren't good; 4) Could you place subpackages' %files sections in more standard way, e.g., after %files for the main package. Otherwise, looking inside the spec it's hard to estimate what goes the main package and what to subpackages since they're on the different places.
Thanks for reviewing, I will look into the issues
https://github.com/timlau/dnf-daemon/releases/download/dnfdaemon-0.3.2/dnfdaemon-0.3.2-1.fc21.src.rpm https://raw.githubusercontent.com/timlau/dnf-daemon/master/dnfdaemon.spec 1) Generate sources locally and upload the to github release, so i dont use the autogenerated ones. 2) - %config is not used for dbus .conf files, because user should never edit that - requirement for python3-dnfdaemon is at little special it dont req. main package, it is the mail package dnfdaemon there is requiring python3-dnfdaemon. 3) cleanup changelog 4) ordered %files sections
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/timlau/dnf-daemon/dnfdaemon-0.3.2-2/dnfdaemon.spec https://github.com/timlau/dnf-daemon/releases/download/dnfdaemon-0.3.2-2/dnfdaemon-0.3.2-2.fc21.src.rpm * merged python3-dnfdaemon into main dnfdaemon package * renamed python3-dnfdaemon-client to python3-dnfdaemon * renamed python-dnfdaemon-client to python-dnfdaemon * fixed dir ownerships.
https://github.com/timlau/dnf-daemon/releases/download/dnfdaemon-0.3.2-3/dnfdaemon-0.3.2-3.fc21.src.rpm https://raw.githubusercontent.com/timlau/dnf-daemon/dnfdaemon-0.3.2-3/dnfdaemon.spec * remove python3-dnfdaemon requirement from main package
Updated review: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines ===== 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: "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 13 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mock/sandbox/test/dnfdaemon/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [x]: 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 3 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]: 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 %doc. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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]: 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 do not use a name that already exist [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 Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: 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). [x]: 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. [-]: 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]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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: Mock build failed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint Note: build is fine and install in F21 will be fine, too. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 1.1.41 starting... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins Start: run Mock Version: 1.1.41 INFO: Mock Version: 1.1.41 Start: lock buildroot INFO: installing package(s): /home/mock/sandbox/test/dnfdaemon/results/dnfdaemon-0.3.2-3.fc20.noarch.rpm /home/mock/sandbox/test/dnfdaemon/results/python3-dnfdaemon-0.3.2-3.fc20.noarch.rpm /home/mock/sandbox/test/dnfdaemon/results/python-dnfdaemon-0.3.2-3.fc20.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # ['/usr/bin/yum', '--installroot', '/var/lib/mock/fedora-20-x86_64/root/', '--releasever', '20', 'install', '/home/mock/sandbox/test/dnfdaemon/results/dnfdaemon-0.3.2-3.fc20.noarch.rpm', '/home/mock/sandbox/test/dnfdaemon/results/python3-dnfdaemon-0.3.2-3.fc20.noarch.rpm', '/home/mock/sandbox/test/dnfdaemon/results/python-dnfdaemon-0.3.2-3.fc20.noarch.rpm', '--setopt=tsflags=nocontexts'] Error: Package: dnfdaemon-0.3.2-3.fc20.noarch (/dnfdaemon-0.3.2-3.fc20.noarch) Requires: python3-dnf >= 0.6.1 Available: python3-dnf-0.4.8-1.fc20.noarch (fedora) python3-dnf = 0.4.8-1.fc20 Available: python3-dnf-0.5.4-2.fc20.noarch (updates) python3-dnf = 0.5.4-2.fc20 You could try using --skip-broken to work around the problem You could try running: rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest -- as said above, we can ignore installation error in F20 environment, since it's proven to be fine with F21 (but sadly I don't have fedora-review suite in devel.) Rpmlint ------- Checking: dnfdaemon-0.3.2-3.fc20.noarch.rpm python3-dnfdaemon-0.3.2-3.fc20.noarch.rpm python-dnfdaemon-0.3.2-3.fc20.noarch.rpm dnfdaemon-0.3.2-3.fc20.src.rpm dnfdaemon.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) DBus -> D Bus, DB us, DB-us dnfdaemon.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dnf -> def, inf, DNA dnfdaemon.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Dbus -> Bus, D bus, Dubs dnfdaemon.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dnf -> def, inf, DNA dnfdaemon.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/dbus-1/system.d/org.baseurl.DnfSystem.conf python3-dnfdaemon.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) api -> pi, ape, apt python3-dnfdaemon.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dnf -> def, inf, DNA python3-dnfdaemon.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US api -> pi, ape, apt python3-dnfdaemon.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dnf -> def, inf, DNA python3-dnfdaemon.noarch: W: no-documentation python-dnfdaemon.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) api -> pi, ape, apt python-dnfdaemon.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dnf -> def, inf, DNA python-dnfdaemon.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US api -> pi, ape, apt python-dnfdaemon.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dnf -> def, inf, DNA python-dnfdaemon.noarch: W: no-documentation dnfdaemon.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) DBus -> D Bus, DB us, DB-us dnfdaemon.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dnf -> def, inf, DNA dnfdaemon.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Dbus -> Bus, D bus, Dubs dnfdaemon.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dnf -> def, inf, DNA 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 19 warnings. Requires -------- python-dnfdaemon (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): dnfdaemon pygobject3 python(abi) dnfdaemon (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /usr/bin/python3 policycoreutils-python polkit python(abi) python3-dbus python3-dnf python3-gobject python3-dnfdaemon (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): dnfdaemon python(abi) python3-gobject Provides -------- python-dnfdaemon: python-dnfdaemon dnfdaemon: dnfdaemon python3-dnfdaemon: python3-dnfdaemon Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/timlau/dnf-daemon/releases/download/dnfdaemon-0.3.2/dnfdaemon-0.3.2.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e583e27092a780cee4f5743ccaaf057bcaab9e5079909d4604998cd89ed8c8e4 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e583e27092a780cee4f5743ccaaf057bcaab9e5079909d4604998cd89ed8c8e4 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --rpm-spec -n dnfdaemon-0.3.2-3.fc21.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-20-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG Summary: package APPROVED.
Thanks a lot, Denis, Just let me know if you need something reviewed in the future. Just a hint, if you run fedora-review -b 1149390 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 It will build packages with an rawhide build root in mock.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: dnfdaemon Short Description: Dbus daemon for dnf package actions Upstream URL: https://github.com/timlau/dnf-daemon Owners: timlau Branches: f21 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
(In reply to Tim Lauridsen from comment #9) > Just let me know if you need something reviewed in the future. Sure. Sorry for the delayed review process. > Just a hint, if you run > > fedora-review -b 1149390 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Yepp. But there was a issue with initial submission: due to invalid "Source0" I was not be aple to use this feature directly. Although I could be using it the second time.
Can this issue be closed as no longer relevant?
I see package's builds and updates, so I think that this bug just hasn't been assigned during the initial package submission. Closing now, and if someone has objections, it can be reopened again.