Spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/snmende/libClipper2/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04999361-libClipper2/libClipper2.spec SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/snmende/libClipper2/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04999361-libClipper2/libClipper2-1.0.6~20221031gita2036d2-1.fc38.src.rpm Description: The Clipper2 library performs clipping and offsetting for both lines and polygons. All four boolean clipping operations are supported - intersection, union, difference and exclusive-or. Polygons can be of any shape including self-intersecting polygons. Clipper2 is a major update of original Clipper library authored by Angus Johnson. Clipper was written over 10 years ago and still works very well, but Clipper2 is better in just about every way. Fedora Account System Username: snmende Build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/snmende/libClipper2/build/4999361/
Sepc and links in the OP updated to the latest release
SPEC: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/snmende/libClipper2/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04994946-libClipper2/libClipper2.spec SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/snmende/libClipper2/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04994946-libClipper2/libClipper2-1.0.6-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #2) Benson, thank you, I fixed the OP. Sergey.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Boost Software License 1.0", "BSD 3-Clause License", "BSD 3-Clause License [generated file]". 169 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/libClipper2/2130903-libClipper2/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 7 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [?]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define tag0 Clipper2_%version [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. ===== 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: No rpmlint messages. [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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 4 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 4.6 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/google/googletest/archive/5e6a533680fc8292c31f31664d80c48440d4a526/googletest-5e6a533680fc8292c31f31664d80c48440d4a526.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : bf5fa6ff9d9d5094d3967f93a08fe9558866605be6bb7e810b2052b2a01fd3ec CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : bf5fa6ff9d9d5094d3967f93a08fe9558866605be6bb7e810b2052b2a01fd3ec https://github.com/AngusJohnson/Clipper2/archive/Clipper2_1.0.6/Clipper2-Clipper2_1.0.6.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f6dcff8ab6edc241cbd7d8feaea5e6f3d1acd127208f754d3decc20ee27d1078 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f6dcff8ab6edc241cbd7d8feaea5e6f3d1acd127208f754d3decc20ee27d1078 Requires -------- libClipper2 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libClipper2-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libClipper2(x86-64) libClipper2.so.1()(64bit) libClipper2Z.so.1()(64bit) pkgconfig libClipper2-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libClipper2-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- libClipper2: libClipper2 libClipper2(x86-64) libClipper2.so.1()(64bit) libClipper2Z.so.1()(64bit) libClipper2-devel: libClipper2-devel libClipper2-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(Clipper2) libClipper2-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libClipper2-debuginfo libClipper2-debuginfo(x86-64) libClipper2.so.1.0.4-1.0.6-1.fc38.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libClipper2Z.so.1.0.4-1.0.6-1.fc38.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libClipper2-debugsource: libClipper2-debugsource libClipper2-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2130903 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Ruby, Perl, Python, SugarActivity, Java, Ocaml, PHP, R, fonts, Haskell Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Comments: a) GTest is available in Fedora: https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/gtest/gtest/ Following: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/59668661/how-to-find-google-test-with-find-package-using-cmake-on-windows Remove lines 141-144 of CPP/CMakeLists.txt include(GoogleTest) add_subdirectory("${PROJECT_SOURCE_DIR}/Tests/googletest/") set_target_properties(gtest gtest_main PROPERTIES FOLDER GTest) and in their place put: find_package(GTest REQUIRED) This will also remove BSD license warnings. b) Correct functionality assumed based on tests
See also https://cmake.org/cmake/help/latest/module/FindGTest.html
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #4) > Comments: > a) GTest is available in Fedora: > https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/gtest/gtest/ > > Following: > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/59668661/how-to-find-google-test-with- > find-package-using-cmake-on-windows > > Remove lines 141-144 of CPP/CMakeLists.txt > include(GoogleTest) > > add_subdirectory("${PROJECT_SOURCE_DIR}/Tests/googletest/") > set_target_properties(gtest gtest_main PROPERTIES FOLDER GTest) > > and in their place put: > find_package(GTest REQUIRED) Benson, thank you for the links. Done, links in the OP are updated. Though ELN build now fails due to the missing gtest (any version). Regards, Sergey
Thanks for the update. Almost there. It is fine to exclude ELN as an architecture. In the spec file, indicate it is excluded because GTest is not available. When running fedora-review, there are errors in the package checksums. The source package should be left as is, and a patch applied to CPP/CMakeLists.txt. The patch file should be included. Alternatively, you can use sed in the spec file to change CPP/CMakeLists.txt Please also ensure that the spec file in the srpm is the same as the one posted at the spec url.
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #7) > Thanks for the update. Almost there. It is fine to exclude ELN as an > architecture. > In the spec file, indicate it is excluded because GTest is not available. Do you mean to put `ExcludeArch: ELN` into spec literally? > When running fedora-review, there are errors in the package checksums. It's because I uploaded single spec file to build so the copr retrieved the source tarball on its own. > The source package should be left as is, and a patch applied to CPP/CMakeLists.txt. > The patch file should be included. Alternatively, you can use sed in the spec > file to change CPP/CMakeLists.txt Aren't snapshots allowed? It's not a problem for me to provide this change as a patch, but it is already merged into upstream. > Please also ensure that the spec file in the srpm is the same as the one > posted at the spec url. Of course. Sergey
> Do you mean to put `ExcludeArch: ELN` into spec literally? Yes, along with a comment that it is excluded because of GTest. > Aren't snapshots allowed? It's not a problem for me to provide this change as a patch, > but it is already merged into upstream. That is ok. Snapshots are fine, however checksums of the downloaded source, and packaged source did not match when running Fedora Review. Output I got (which for some reason still has GTest) was: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/google/googletest/archive/5e6a533680fc8292c31f31664d80c48440d4a526/googletest-5e6a533680fc8292c31f31664d80c48440d4a526.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ERROR CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : bf5fa6ff9d9d5094d3967f93a08fe9558866605be6bb7e810b2052b2a01fd3ec https://github.com/AngusJohnson/Clipper2/archive/Clipper2_1.0.6/Clipper2-Clipper2_1.0.6.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ERROR CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f6dcff8ab6edc241cbd7d8feaea5e6f3d1acd127208f754d3decc20ee27d1078
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #9) > > Do you mean to put `ExcludeArch: ELN` into spec literally? > Yes, along with a comment that it is excluded because of GTest. But it does not prevent the mock to run and detect that gtest package is not available while not informing a user that ELN is blacklisted. > > > Aren't snapshots allowed? It's not a problem for me to provide this change as a patch, > > but it is already merged into upstream. > That is ok. Snapshots are fine, however checksums of the downloaded source, > and > packaged source did not match when running Fedora Review. Output I got > (which for some reason still has GTest) was: > Source checksums > ---------------- > https://github.com/google/googletest/archive/ > 5e6a533680fc8292c31f31664d80c48440d4a526/googletest- > 5e6a533680fc8292c31f31664d80c48440d4a526.tar.gz : > CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ERROR > CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : > bf5fa6ff9d9d5094d3967f93a08fe9558866605be6bb7e810b2052b2a01fd3ec > https://github.com/AngusJohnson/Clipper2/archive/Clipper2_1.0.6/Clipper2- > Clipper2_1.0.6.tar.gz : > CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ERROR > CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : > f6dcff8ab6edc241cbd7d8feaea5e6f3d1acd127208f754d3decc20ee27d1078 For some reason you have the wrong SRPM and probably the spec. Just to make sure you have the correct links: Spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/snmende/libClipper2/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04999361-libClipper2/libClipper2.spec SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/snmende/libClipper2/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04999361-libClipper2/libClipper2-1.0.6~20221031gita2036d2-1.fc38.src.rpm The excerpt from review.txt for this build: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/AngusJohnson/Clipper2/archive/a2036d285e61219fc7bd236636f9ed9f394d8ad1/Clipper2-a2036d285e61219fc7bd236636f9ed9f394d8ad1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ff463957a8a4b7dbf7774a8a6e575cbebf62e757a5159124ffe63da99e68a451 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ff463957a8a4b7dbf7774a8a6e575cbebf62e757a5159124ffe63da99e68a451 Thank you, Sergey
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #9) > > > Do you mean to put `ExcludeArch: ELN` into spec literally? > > Yes, along with a comment that it is excluded because of GTest. > > But it does not prevent the mock to run and detect that gtest package is not > available while not informing a user that ELN is blacklisted. I just checked 22k specs and did not find a single spec that has anything but a real arch names (or macro names that expands to arch names). Are you still sure I must include `ExcludeArch: ELN` into spec? Thank you, Sergey
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Boost Software License 1.0". 115 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/libClipper2/2130903-libClipper2/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [!]: 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 40960 bytes in 7 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 4 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 3.8 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/AngusJohnson/Clipper2/archive/a2036d285e61219fc7bd236636f9ed9f394d8ad1/Clipper2-a2036d285e61219fc7bd236636f9ed9f394d8ad1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ff463957a8a4b7dbf7774a8a6e575cbebf62e757a5159124ffe63da99e68a451 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ff463957a8a4b7dbf7774a8a6e575cbebf62e757a5159124ffe63da99e68a451 Requires -------- libClipper2 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libClipper2-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libClipper2(x86-64) libClipper2.so.1()(64bit) libClipper2Z.so.1()(64bit) pkgconfig libClipper2-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libClipper2-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- libClipper2: libClipper2 libClipper2(x86-64) libClipper2.so.1()(64bit) libClipper2Z.so.1()(64bit) libClipper2-devel: libClipper2-devel libClipper2-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(Clipper2) pkgconfig(Clipper2Z) libClipper2-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libClipper2-debuginfo libClipper2-debuginfo(x86-64) libClipper2.so.1.0.6-1.0.6~20221031gita2036d2-1.fc38.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libClipper2Z.so.1.0.6-1.0.6~20221031gita2036d2-1.fc38.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libClipper2-debugsource: libClipper2-debugsource libClipper2-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2130903 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: R, Ocaml, Perl, Python, Haskell, Ruby, Java, fonts, SugarActivity, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Comments: a) Thanks for updating the links. b) rpmlint seems ok c) Asked on devel mailing list about ELN d) Correct functionality assumed based on tests
Based on list discussion, package is approved. I cannot sponsor though.
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #13) > Based on list discussion, package is approved. I cannot sponsor though. Thank you very much for your efforts. Sergey
Welcome Sergey. Sponsor policy and potential sponsors: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Packager_sponsor_policy/ https://docs.pagure.org/fedora-sponsors/active
The ticket status is being reset, since creating the repository will require a fresh approval. Let us know if you're still interested in this package.
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script. The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it.