Spec URL: <https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/axeld/compton/fedora-27-x86_64/00696759-compton/compton.spec> SRPM URL: <https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/axeld/compton/fedora-27-x86_64/00696759-compton/compton-0.1_beta2-0.src.rpm> Description: Compton is a compositor for X, and a fork of xcompmgr-dana. Fedora Account System Username: axeld
>Release: 0 The "Release:" tag should start at 1. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning#Simple_versioning >Group: System/X11/Utilities The "Group:" tag is not used in Fedora. >BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-build The "BuildRoot:" tag should not be used in Fedora. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections >Source0: https://github.com/chjj/compton/archive/v0.1_beta2.tar.gz You can use the %{version} macro inside the URL so you don't have to edit it when a new version comes out. >%__make >make DESTDIR=%{buildroot} install Why the mix of macro and "raw" make calls? >%doc README.md LICENSE The LICENSE file should be marked as %license, not %doc. >%{_mandir}/man1/compton.1.gz >%{_mandir}/man1/compton-trans.1.gz You should not assume gzip compression will be used for manpages. Instead, use a wildcard that can match both compressed and non-compressed files. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Manpages
Made the necessary changes, please find the new links below: Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/axeld/compton/fedora-27-x86_64/00697980-compton/compton.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/axeld/compton/fedora-27-x86_64/00697980-compton/compton-0.1_beta2-1.src.rpm Please let me know if there are any further changes to be made.
v0.1_beta2: Second beta release ( 3 Nov 2013 ) Are you sure we can expect any further release or even bug fixes? https://github.com/chjj/compton/releases
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #3) > v0.1_beta2: Second beta release ( 3 Nov 2013 ) > > Are you sure we can expect any further release or even bug fixes? > https://github.com/chjj/compton/releases I can't guarantee that we'll get any more updates or bug fixes from chjj them-self. Most bugfixes seem to be coming from the community side these days. However, I'll be trying to keep the package as up-to-date as possible regarding any bugs and fixes.
Given that there's been quite a few commits in the repository since the v0.1_beta2 tag (over 60, if I'm counting correctly), I think it would be preferable to use latest git snapshot for packaging.
(In reply to Iwicki Artur from comment #5) > Given that there's been quite a few commits in the repository since the > v0.1_beta2 tag (over 60, if I'm counting correctly), I think it would be > preferable to use latest git snapshot for packaging. I'm not sure if this is the right way to go about doing this, but I created a fork of the upstream repo to create a new release and I pointed the spec file to that fork. It looks like the original creator stopped taking pull requests some time ago, so any future updates and issue fixes should be happening on my fork. Please find the new spec file and srpm linked below: Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/axeld/compton/fedora-27-x86_64/00699864-compton/compton.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/axeld/compton/fedora-27-x86_64/00699864-compton/compton-0.1_beta3-1.src.rpm
First of all, thanks for taking this on. I had actually considered submitting it myself, but felt I couldn't properly support a package where upstream is basically dead without some insight into the code-base. So in the end I decided to leave it in Copr and maintain that on a best-effort basis. But I'll try to help if I can. There used to be a compton package in the past: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/compton/blob/master/f/dead.package I think this means you have to unretire it, there's a process for that... (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Orphaned_package_that_need_new_maintainers#Claiming_Ownership_of_a_Retired_Package) (In reply to Iwicki Artur from comment #1) > >Release: 0 > The "Release:" tag should start at 1. > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning#Simple_versioning As I understand it, simple versioning does not apply here (0.1_beta2 would be higher than 0.1, which is wrong). So the correct way to do this should be: > Version: 0.1 > Release: 0.1.beta2%{?dist} (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Versioning_Examples has some examples to this end) Some other possible issues: - the dist tag is missing (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:DistTag) - BuildRequires: gcc is now required (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B) - libdrm-devel and libXfixes-devel should be explicitly listed as build dependencies; they get pulled in by mesa-libGL-devel, but you shouldn't rely on that (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Build-Time_Dependencies_.28BuildRequires.29) - BUT, the Makefile uses pkg-config for x11, xcomposite, xfixes, xdamage, xrender, xext, xrandr, xinerama, libconfig, libdrm and dbus-1, so pkgconfig(x11), pkgconfig(xcomposite) and so on should be listed insted (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:PkgConfigBuildRequires) - compton-trans needs xprop or xwininfo, which are in xorg-x11-utils, so this should be a (runtime) dependency - hicolor-icon-theme probably shouldn't be a build dependency, it is only needed so that there is a package owning the directory structure when it is installed (and for running gtk-update-icon-cache, see next point). > dnf repoquery --repo rawhide-source --whatrequires hicolor-icon-theme does list a couple of packages that have BuildRequires: hicolor-icon-theme (and actually lack the runtime dependency!). But I'm pretty sure those are just bugs. - the icon cache scriptlets are no longer needed, there have been file triggers for those for some time now (rpm -q --filetriggers hicolor-icon-theme) (https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Packaging%3AScriptlets&type=revision&diff=508538&oldid=500930 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/736) - the same is true for update-desktop-database (which was actually only needed for .desktop files containing MIME types in the first place) - however, the .desktop file still needs to be validated > %check > desktop-file-validate %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/applications/compton.desktop This also needs BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usage) (In reply to Abhiram K from comment #6) > I'm not sure if this is the right way to go about doing this, but I created > a fork of the upstream repo to create a new release and I pointed the spec > file to that fork. You can always package the current master as a snapshot version (see my Copr build for an example https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/dschubert/compton/fedora-27-x86_64/00688196-compton/compton.spec) and add any additional changes as patch files. It's not exactly pretty, but at least it's clear from the spec file what the changes are relative to upstream. I think if you want to maintain a proper fork, it would be better to have a different (package) name for it. Otherwise we will be left with a nasty mess, if there is ever another upstream release.
Made the suggested changes, please find the new links down below: SPEC URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/axeld/compton/fedora-27-x86_64/00712261-compton/compton.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/axeld/compton/fedora-27-x86_64/00712261-compton/compton-0.1_beta3-0.1_beta3.fc27.src.rpm
%post update-desktop-database &> /dev/null || : touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor &>/dev/null gtk-update-icon-cache %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor &>/dev/null || : %postun update-desktop-database &> /dev/null || : if [ $1 -eq 0 ] ; then touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor &>/dev/null gtk-update-icon-cache %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor &>/dev/null || : fi Please remove those scriptlets. > %__make > %__make docs %make_build %make_build docs
I will sponsor you and take this review.
Thank you so much for the sponser! I removed the scriptlets and made the changes to those two lines as you suggested. SPEC URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/axeld/compton/fedora-27-x86_64/00712491-compton/compton.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/axeld/compton/fedora-27-x86_64/00712491-compton/compton-0.1_beta3-0.1_beta3.fc27.src.rpm
Note: the following review is by a non-packager-group member. It was produced with help from fedora-review. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - I am unable to install compton without libconfig. Should libconfig be a 'Requires', rather than a 'BuildRequires'? - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/compton - Changelog entries should include <version>-<release> to indicate which revision number a change applies to. - Rpmlint warned that Changelog timestamps aren't sane (Feb 19 2018 was a Friday, not a Tuesday). ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [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). [!]: 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. [x]: 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. [x]: 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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 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 must own all directories that it creates. [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 contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [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 is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in compton- debuginfo , compton-debugsource [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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. [?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [-]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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: compton-0.1_beta3-0.1_beta3.fc28.x86_64.rpm compton-debuginfo-0.1_beta3-0.1_beta3.fc28.x86_64.rpm compton-debugsource-0.1_beta3-0.1_beta3.fc28.x86_64.rpm compton-0.1_beta3-0.1_beta3.fc28.src.rpm compton.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xcompmgr -> composer compton.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dana -> Dana, Adana, data compton.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog compton.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib compton-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog compton-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog compton-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation compton.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xcompmgr -> composer compton.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dana -> Dana, Adana, data compton.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog compton.src: E: specfile-error warning: bogus date in %changelog: Tue Feb 9 2018 AxelSilverdew <axeld> 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 10 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: compton-debuginfo-0.1_beta3-0.1_beta3.fc28.x86_64.rpm compton-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory compton.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xcompmgr -> composer compton.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dana -> Dana, Adana, data compton.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog compton.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/AxelSilverdew/compton <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> compton.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib compton-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog compton-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/AxelSilverdew/compton <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> compton-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation compton-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog compton-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/AxelSilverdew/compton <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings. Note: spelling errors and invalid URLs were false-positives. Requires -------- compton (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh hicolor-icon-theme libGL.so.1()(64bit) libX11.so.6()(64bit) libXcomposite.so.1()(64bit) libXdamage.so.1()(64bit) libXext.so.6()(64bit) libXfixes.so.3()(64bit) libXinerama.so.1()(64bit) libXrandr.so.2()(64bit) libXrender.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libconfig.so.9()(64bit) libdbus-1.so.3()(64bit) libdbus-1.so.3(LIBDBUS_1_3)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpcre.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) xorg-x11-utils compton-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): compton-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- compton: application() application(compton.desktop) compton compton(x86-64) compton-debugsource: compton-debugsource compton-debugsource(x86-64) compton-debuginfo: compton-debuginfo compton-debuginfo(x86-64) debuginfo(build-id) Source checksums ---------------- https://raw.githubusercontent.com/AxelSilverdew/compton/master/media/icons/48x48/compton.png : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ba22069d8376ecea4d9c80c25bf91bda4eb782c1fc8dc2bb5fb595bc4aec43a3 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ba22069d8376ecea4d9c80c25bf91bda4eb782c1fc8dc2bb5fb595bc4aec43a3 https://github.com/AxelSilverdew/compton/archive/v0.1_beta3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 04757ed547bdaefd65f4cdc23b6284f825f6962b493bc5470197f963ef79fb31 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 04757ed547bdaefd65f4cdc23b6284f825f6962b493bc5470197f963ef79fb31 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1532042 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
(In reply to James Paul Turner from comment #12) > - I am unable to install compton without libconfig. Should libconfig be a > 'Requires', rather than a 'BuildRequires'? I'm not quite sure what you mean. According to your output, compton already requires libconfig.so.9()(64bit) which is provided by libconfig.
(In reply to James Paul Turner from comment #12) > - Package does not use a name that already exists. > Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/compton That package has been orphaned. This review request was created in order for me to un-orphan it and continue maintaining it. :D I will look into the other issues you have mentioned and update as necessary. Thank you for pointing them out.
(In reply to Dominik Schubert from comment #13) > (In reply to James Paul Turner from comment #12) > > - I am unable to install compton without libconfig. Should libconfig be a > > 'Requires', rather than a 'BuildRequires'? > > I'm not quite sure what you mean. According to your output, compton already > requires libconfig.so.9()(64bit) which is provided by libconfig. Yes, you're quite right. I forgot that rpm, by itself, does not resolve dependencies. Thank you.
The versioning is still wrong, see [1] and [2] for details. It should be: Version: 0.1 Release: 0.1.beta3%{?dist} And you should fix Source0 tag and add '-n %{name}-%{version}_beta3' after the autosetup. Of course you can use macros, e.g.: %global ver 0.1 %global prever beta3 Version: %{ver} Release: 0.1%{?prever:.%{prever}}%{?dist} ... Source0: https://github.com/AxelSilverdew/compton/archive/v%{version}%{?prever:_%{prever}}.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{version}%{?prever:_%{prever}}.tar.gz ... %autosetup -n %{name}-%{version}%{?prever:_%{prever}} Also note the #/ part in Source0, it's to give the resulting archive proper name, it's described in [3]. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning#Prerelease_versions [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Versioning_Examples [3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Troublesome_URLs
Would someone update the status of this review request?
As per the procedure for stalled package reviews [1], I am marking this package review as stalled. Please respond as soon as possible to ensure that this review can be finished. You have a further week from this date to respond. Thanks. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews
(In reply to James Paul Turner from comment #18) > As per the procedure for stalled package reviews [1], I am marking this > package review as stalled. Please respond as soon as possible to ensure that > this review can be finished. You have a further week from this date to > respond. Thanks. > > [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews Hey, I was just pushing an update. I've been caught up with work on my end. Sorry, for taking so long.
(In reply to Jaroslav Škarvada from comment #16) > The versioning is still wrong, see [1] and [2] for details. It should be: > > Version: 0.1 > Release: 0.1.beta3%{?dist} > > And you should fix Source0 tag and add '-n %{name}-%{version}_beta3' after > the autosetup. > > Of course you can use macros, e.g.: > > %global ver 0.1 > %global prever beta3 > > Version: %{ver} > Release: 0.1%{?prever:.%{prever}}%{?dist} > ... > Source0: > https://github.com/AxelSilverdew/compton/archive/v%{version}%{?prever: > _%{prever}}.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{version}%{?prever:_%{prever}}.tar.gz > ... > %autosetup -n %{name}-%{version}%{?prever:_%{prever}} > > Also note the #/ part in Source0, it's to give the resulting archive proper > name, it's described in [3]. > > [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning#Prerelease_versions > [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Versioning_Examples > [3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Troublesome_URLs Hey, sorry for taking so long to reply. I made the changes that you recommended, and you can find the new links below: SPEC URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/axeld/compton/fedora-27-x86_64/00733045-compton/compton.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/axeld/compton/fedora-27-x86_64/00733045-compton/compton-0.1-0.1.beta3.fc27.src.rpm
No problem Abhiram. Everything seems to be OK. koji scratch builds passing: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=26019541 https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=26019531 I'm marking thins as accepted. You may now proceed with the import/build/update process, and then close this ticket once complete. Post a comment here if you get stuck.
(In reply to James Paul Turner from comment #21) > No problem Abhiram. Everything seems to be OK. koji scratch builds passing: > > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=26019541 > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=26019531 > > I'm marking thins as accepted. You may now proceed with the > import/build/update process, and then close this ticket once complete. Post > a comment here if you get stuck. I'm not able to request a repo because "The Bugzilla bug's review is approved by a user that is not a packager".
(In reply to Abhiram K from comment #22) > (In reply to James Paul Turner from comment #21) > > No problem Abhiram. Everything seems to be OK. koji scratch builds passing: > > > > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=26019541 > > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=26019531 > > > > I'm marking thins as accepted. You may now proceed with the > > import/build/update process, and then close this ticket once complete. Post > > a comment here if you get stuck. > > I'm not able to request a repo because "The Bugzilla bug's review is > approved by a user that is not a packager". Hmm, strange, I am sponsor of James (FAS nick: jamesturner246), he is already in the packager group. Could you please open infrastructure ticket about it and link it here? I could approve the review myself, but I think the problem should be resolved, not workarounded.
(In reply to Jaroslav Škarvada from comment #23) > (In reply to Abhiram K from comment #22) > > (In reply to James Paul Turner from comment #21) > > > No problem Abhiram. Everything seems to be OK. koji scratch builds passing: > > > > > > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=26019541 > > > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=26019531 > > > > > > I'm marking thins as accepted. You may now proceed with the > > > import/build/update process, and then close this ticket once complete. Post > > > a comment here if you get stuck. > > > > I'm not able to request a repo because "The Bugzilla bug's review is > > approved by a user that is not a packager". > > Hmm, strange, I am sponsor of James (FAS nick: jamesturner246), he is > already in the packager group. Could you please open infrastructure ticket > about it and link it here? I could approve the review myself, but I think > the problem should be resolved, not workarounded. What exactly should I title the ticket? I'm not quite sure what I should name it.
(In reply to Abhiram K from comment #24) > What exactly should I title the ticket? > I'm not quite sure what I should name it. New ticket: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue It depends what tool returned you the error. I would write there something like "Unable to request repo for reviewed package" or similar. I could open it myself, but I don't know the details nor could provide more information if requested.
(In reply to Jaroslav Škarvada from comment #25) > (In reply to Abhiram K from comment #24) > > What exactly should I title the ticket? > > I'm not quite sure what I should name it. > > New ticket: > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue > > It depends what tool returned you the error. I would write there something > like "Unable to request repo for reviewed package" or similar. I could open > it myself, but I don't know the details nor could provide more information > if requested. Ah sorry, are you already packager? Maybe the problem is not about James but you, are you sponsored by someone?
(In reply to Jaroslav Škarvada from comment #26) > (In reply to Jaroslav Škarvada from comment #25) > > (In reply to Abhiram K from comment #24) > > > What exactly should I title the ticket? > > > I'm not quite sure what I should name it. > > > > New ticket: > > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue > > > > It depends what tool returned you the error. I would write there something > > like "Unable to request repo for reviewed package" or similar. I could open > > it myself, but I don't know the details nor could provide more information > > if requested. > > Ah sorry, are you already packager? > > Maybe the problem is not about James but you, are you sponsored by someone? I noticed: FE-NEEDSPONSOR flag If you aren't sponsored, I can sponsor you, because you fulfilled the requirements to be sponsored.
(In reply to Jaroslav Škarvada from comment #27) > (In reply to Jaroslav Škarvada from comment #26) > > (In reply to Jaroslav Škarvada from comment #25) > > > (In reply to Abhiram K from comment #24) > > > > What exactly should I title the ticket? > > > > I'm not quite sure what I should name it. > > > > > > New ticket: > > > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue > > > > > > It depends what tool returned you the error. I would write there something > > > like "Unable to request repo for reviewed package" or similar. I could open > > > it myself, but I don't know the details nor could provide more information > > > if requested. > > > > Ah sorry, are you already packager? > > > > Maybe the problem is not about James but you, are you sponsored by someone? > > I noticed: > FE-NEEDSPONSOR flag > > If you aren't sponsored, I can sponsor you, because you fulfilled the > requirements to be sponsored. I'm not a packager yet. I would like to be sponsored though. The issue wasn't thrown by a tool. I was able to request a repo, but my request was denied because this review request was 'approved by a user and not a packager'.
(In reply to Abhiram K from comment #28) > I'm not a packager yet. I would like to be sponsored though. > > The issue wasn't thrown by a tool. I was able to request a repo, but my > request was denied because this review request was 'approved by a user and > not a packager'. OK, thanks for info. I will sponsor you. Please give me your FAS account name and please sign "Fedora Project Contributor Agreement" in FAS (in case you haven't already done it).
(In reply to Jaroslav Škarvada from comment #29) > (In reply to Abhiram K from comment #28) > > I'm not a packager yet. I would like to be sponsored though. > > > > The issue wasn't thrown by a tool. I was able to request a repo, but my > > request was denied because this review request was 'approved by a user and > > not a packager'. > > OK, thanks for info. I will sponsor you. Please give me your FAS account > name and please sign "Fedora Project Contributor Agreement" in FAS (in case > you haven't already done it). My FAS: axeld I already have CLA+1 on FAS. Thanks for sponsoring me! :D
(In reply to Abhiram K from comment #30) > (In reply to Jaroslav Škarvada from comment #29) > > (In reply to Abhiram K from comment #28) > > > I'm not a packager yet. I would like to be sponsored though. > > > > > > The issue wasn't thrown by a tool. I was able to request a repo, but my > > > request was denied because this review request was 'approved by a user and > > > not a packager'. > > > > OK, thanks for info. I will sponsor you. Please give me your FAS account > > name and please sign "Fedora Project Contributor Agreement" in FAS (in case > > you haven't already done it). > > My FAS: axeld > > I already have CLA+1 on FAS. > > Thanks for sponsoring me! :D OK, you are sponsored now, enjoy :) Feel free to ask me anytime if you need help. Give it few minutes for the change to propagate, then try the new repo request again. If it's denied, please provide me the link to the denied request.
compton-0.1-0.1.beta3.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-2c82c86437
compton-0.1-0.1.beta3.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-b49f47d617
compton-0.1-0.1.beta3.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-2c82c86437
compton-0.1-0.1.beta3.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-b49f47d617
compton-0.1-0.1.beta3.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
compton-0.1-0.1.beta3.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.