Spec URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org//R-pak.spec SRPM URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org//R-pak-0.1.2-1.fc32.src.rpm Description: The goal of 'pak' is to make package installation faster and more reliable. In particular, it performs all HTTP operations in parallel, so metadata resolution and package downloads are fast. Metadata and package files are cached on the local disk as well. 'pak' has a dependency solver, so it finds version conflicts before performing the installation. This version of 'pak' supports CRAN, 'Bioconductor' and 'GitHub' packages as well.
The license is correct and appropriated for Fedora. The spec file follows the Fedora package guidelines. In this cases these are the fedora-review complaints: Issues: ======= - Package have the default element marked as %%doc :DESCRIPTION - Package requires R-core. - Package installs properly. The first two are usual and are not issues. The last one is more interesting, for a suitable definition of interesting. :-) It fails with the following error: Error: Problem: conflicting requests - nothing provides R(rprojroot) >= 1.3.2 needed by R-pak-0.1.2-1.fc34.noarch Actually consulting https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/R-rprojroot there is no build for rawhide (F34). And yet asking to if the package is in rawhide: # dnf -q list R-rprojroot --disablerepo=\* --enablerepo=rawhide Available Packages R-rprojroot.noarch 1.3.2-9.fc33 rawhide So this is a non-issue. The package is approved.
After a thread in fedora-devel the cause become evident: # dnf -q repoquery --provides R-rprojroot --disablerepo=\* --enablerepo=rawhide R(rprojroot) = 1.3-2 R-rprojroot = 1.3.2-9.fc33 Notice that dash instead of the dot in "R(rprojroot) = 1.3-2". Probably this is a bug in the rpm R macros, no?
This is a bug in the pak metadata; it should say 1.3-2. I will send a patch upstream.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/R-pak
FEDORA-2020-7d3e8189f1 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-7d3e8189f1
FEDORA-2020-e15eb4fc79 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-e15eb4fc79
FEDORA-2020-6e5f3336b7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-6e5f3336b7
FEDORA-2020-7d3e8189f1 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-7d3e8189f1` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-7d3e8189f1 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-6e5f3336b7 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-6e5f3336b7` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-6e5f3336b7 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-e15eb4fc79 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-e15eb4fc79` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-e15eb4fc79 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-7d3e8189f1 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2020-e15eb4fc79 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2020-6e5f3336b7 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.