Spec URL: http://averi.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/yum-axelget/yum-axelget.spec SRPM URL: http://averi.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/yum-axelget/yum-axelget-20090926-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: The following Yum plugin based on Axel speeds up your yum downloads by opening multiple ports in parallel, which dramatically speeds up your update experience. Fedora Account System Username: averi
Upstream is dead since 2009.
That's true, but it's worth having on the repositories. Also it appears to be stable enough and the bug tracker of the project isn't populated by critical bugs or issues.
Hi Andrea. - This package doesn't provide any License file. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text - axelget.py is released with a GPLv2+ license. License tag is GPLv2+. - 'yum-fastestmirror' now is 'yum-plugin-fastestmirror' in Fedora, I think a distinction between Fedora and epel5 is better choice. - RPM doesn't need anymore of %defattr(-,root,root,-) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_Permissions - This software needs 'presto' file from 'yum-presto' package. - Please, check the yum-axelget building in EPEL5. In my opinion, you need to know how much long time upstream wants to maintain development of this software; otherwise all our efforts will be useless. :)
Honestly it seems that the development of this software is dead already since several years. That's probably why no one ever packaged this. Thanks for the review! I'm currently not sure on how to move forward, if one of the rules for having a package accepted is an active upstream, then we can close the review request. What do you think?
(In reply to comment #4) > > Thanks for the review! I'm currently not sure on how to move forward, if one > of the rules for having a package accepted is an active upstream, then we > can close the review request. > > What do you think? First of all, contact upstream asking License file including in source archive at least. You will know if upstream folks is still interested or not.
Upstream seems to be active again, the package should be ready to go: 1. a LICENSE file has been included with the correct license, GPLv3 2. fixed the require to be yum-plugin-fastermirror, I don't plan to maintain the package on EL5, and EL6 currently has the yum-plugin-fastestmirror package like Fedora. 3. yum-presto added on the requires and %defattr(-,root,root,-) removed. The location of the spec and SRPM: http://averi.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/yum-axelget/yum-axelget.spec http://averi.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/yum-axelget/yum-axelget-0.2-20130620svn12.fc19.src.rpm Thanks!
Some "need to be fix": 1. Group/BuildRoot tag can be dropped. 2. BuildRequires: python-devel should be BuildRequires: python2-devel 3. Please change $RPM_BUILD_ROOT to %{buildroot} 4. No need to write rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in %install; And no need for clean section existed. 5. Why using this: %{_usr}/lib/yum-plugins/ %{_usr} should be %{_prefix}, and for %{_usr}/lib, why not using: 6. Invalid changelog without version info.
ERR in comment 7: ignore "and for %{_usr}/lib, why not using:"
Everything should be fixed by now, same urls: http://averi.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/yum-axelget/yum-axelget.spec http://averi.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/yum-axelget/yum-axelget-0.2-20130620svn12.fc19.src.rpm
> Version: 0.2 > Release: 20130620svn12%{?dist} Something is missing at the very left side of the Release tag here. There are naming guidelines for snapshot packages: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages Is this a pre-release or a post-release? At https://code.google.com/p/yum-axelget/downloads/list there is a file yum-axelget-1.0-0.3.20130617.fc18.noarch.rpm that's only four days old. > Summary: A plugin for Yum based on Axel that accelerates your download's rate In Anaconda and package tools, which display these summaries, it looks better (and more concise) when omitting these leading articles: Summary: Download accelerator plug-in for Yum Summary: Plug-in for Yum that accelerates download speed https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Examples_of_good_package_summaries Mentioning that "Axel" is being used as the backend is an unimportant detail in my opinion. It would be entirely okay to have just the %description explain that. > Requires: axel, yum-presto, yum-plugin-fastestmirror Not "yum" as a direct requirement? > %description > The following Yum plugin based on Axel speeds up your > yum downloads ... Pedantic: "... Yum downloads". One could split the description into more shorter sentences and drop tech-details, such as "opening ports" or marketing-speak, such as "dramatically speeds up your update experience". %description This is a plug-in for the Yum package tool. It speeds up your downloads using the Axel download accelerator client. > %changelog https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:FrequentlyMadeMistakes (ignore the obsolete items on that page)
> Is this a pre-release or a post-release? > At https://code.google.com/p/yum-axelget/downloads/list there is a file > yum-axelget-1.0-0.3.20130617.fc18.noarch.rpm that's only four days old. That's a RPM, not a new upstream tarball. So I prefer sticking with the current way of checkin the svn repository out until upstream clearly states that a new upstream release is out by creating a new tarball. > Something is missing at the very left side of the Release tag here. > There are naming guidelines for snapshot packages: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages The release tag is actually correct, it's YYYYMMDDvcstypeREVID and that's exactly what I see at the link you provided: 20110102git9e88d7e. > [...] I've improved the descriptions and rebuilt the package. Also added a note on the changelog about yum and yum-presto in Fedora vs RHEL. (RHEL still ships yum-presto while Fedora has included it into yum itself recently) The new URLs are: http://averi.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/yum-axelget/yum-axelget.spec http://averi.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/yum-axelget/yum-axelget-0.2-20130621svn12.fc19.src.rpm The package is rpmlint clean.
> The release tag is actually correct, it's YYYYMMDDvcstypeREVID and > that's exactly what I see at the link you provided: 20110102git9e88d7e. Try again, please. :) So far, you're missing the "release number increment", i.e. the leading "X." at the very left: Release tag for pre-release packages: 0.%{X}.%{alphatag} Release tag for post-release packages: %{X}.%{posttag} where %alphatag and %posttag can also be the %checkout string YYYYMMDDvcstypeREVID. Additionally, if what you check out is post-0.2 code, you need to apply the post-release snapshot naming scheme. Else the pre-1.0 pre-release scheme.
Ah good catch, otherwise I would actually have to bump the date on the posttag everytime a new change has to happen on the package. Something like "1.20130621svn12%{dist}" should do it then :)
Done. http://averi.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/yum-axelget/yum-axelget-0.2-1.20130621svn12.fc19.src.rpm and http://averi.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/yum-axelget/yum-axelget.spec
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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. [!]: 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. %doc line is missing. Please add it in %files section. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Documentation [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/958059-yum-axelget/licensecheck.txt axelget's license is imprecise: axelget.py file is licensed with a GPLv2+, LICENSE file reports a GPLv3. What's right one ? Please, contact the upstream. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python2.7, /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages These directories (/usr/lib/python2.7/*) are owned by python-libs package. There is just a file that installation puts in /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ directory, you must indicate only which. [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/yum-plugins(yum) Same here: /usr/lib/yum-plugins directory is owned by 'yum' package. You must indicate just which file/files must be installed inside. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: Changelog in prescribed format. Changelog is not updated. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [-]: 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. [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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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. [-]: 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: [!]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). "If you wish to use a single spec file to build for multiple distributions, you can use the %{?dist} tag in the Release field. Please refer to the Packaging:DistTag documentation for the details on the appropriate way to do this." https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Release_Tag [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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. See above. [x]: 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. The source archive just contain a pre-built python file; nothing is compiled, but only installed. You need to clarify this issue in devel or packaging mailing lists given that, in most times, pre-built files couldn't be permitted for the packaging. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#No_inclusion_of_pre-built_binaries_or_libraries [-]: %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: %{!?python_sitelib: %define python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c "from distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print get_python_lib()")} python_sitelib definition is not necessary. Why do you use it ? [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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]: SourceX is a working URL. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [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: yum-axelget-0.2-1.20130621svn12.fc21.noarch.rpm yum-axelget-0.2-1.20130621svn12.fc21.src.rpm yum-axelget.noarch: W: no-documentation yum-axelget.src:37: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/yum-plugins/ yum-axelget.src: W: invalid-url Source0: yum-axelget-0.2.20130621svn12.tar.gz 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint yum-axelget yum-axelget.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- yum-axelget (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): axel config(yum-axelget) yum yum-plugin-fastestmirror Provides -------- yum-axelget: config(yum-axelget) yum-axelget Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (920221d) last change: 2013-08-30 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-i386 -b 958059 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, SugarActivity, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EPEL5, EXARCH, DISTTAG
All the issues should be fixed, thanks. Please give it a look so I can finally push it. [1] http://averi.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/yum-axelget/yum-axelget.spec [2] http://averi.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/yum-axelget/yum-axelget-0.2-2.20130621svn12.fc19.src.rpm
(In reply to Andrea Veri from comment #16) > All the issues should be fixed, thanks. Please give it a look so I can > finally push it. > > [1] http://averi.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/yum-axelget/yum-axelget.spec > [2] > http://averi.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/yum-axelget/yum-axelget-0.2-2. > 20130621svn12.fc19.src.rpm %files ... %{python_sitelib}/ <-- This line sets /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages directory as owned by package; it's wrong. Change it with: %{python_sitelib}/*.egg-info > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/958059-yum-axelget/licensecheck.txt > axelget's license is imprecise: axelget.py file is licensed with a GPLv2+, > LICENSE file reports a GPLv3. What's right one ? > Please, contact the upstream. ?
python_sitelib is fixed. My bad doing things too fast this time. About the license, yum-axelget is packaged under the GPLv3 but seems upstream forgot the old header on the source file. I'll make sure that's reported and fixed on the new upstream release. I didn't bump the version this time since the change was very cosmetic.
Anyhow I don't see a single problem moving ahead and approving the package given the GPLv2 and GPLv3 licenses aren't incompatible licenses on their own. The issue has been reported upstream and will be fixed later on. Thanks for taking the time to review the package.
(In reply to Andrea Veri from comment #18) > python_sitelib is fixed. My bad doing things too fast this time. > > About the license, yum-axelget is packaged under the GPLv3 but seems > upstream forgot the old header on the source file. I'll make sure that's > reported and fixed on the new upstream release. Okay, please consider to add a link in a comment in the spec file. > [!]: Package functions as described This plugin cannot work in Fedora 19+ because yum-presto is merged in yum; see https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5579. So 'presto' cannot be loaded by yum. This is stuff of the upstream maintainer. We were near enough to finish, sorry.
Upstream ported yum-axelget to make use of Presto's API contained into Yum itself. Also the license file was updated. I prepared the relevant resources again, please finish up the review: http://averi.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/yum-axelget/yum-axelget.spec and http://averi.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/yum-axelget/yum-axelget-0.2-1.20140407svn14.fc20.src.rpm
- Please, use %{?dist} in the Release tag. - You can fix rpmlint's 'hardcoded-library-path' error by defining a macro as done for 'yum' %global yum_pluginslib /usr/lib/yum-plugins ... %{yum_pluginslib}/axelget.py* - Fix release number increments, in %Changelog * Mon Apr 07 2014 Andrea Veri <averi> - 0.2-1.20140407svn14 * Wed Oct 02 2013 Andrea Veri <averi> - 0.2-2.20130621svn12 * Fri Jun 21 2013 Andrea Veri <averi> - 0.2-1.20130621svn12 * Thu Jun 20 2013 Andrea Veri <averi> - 0.2-1.20130620svn12 That which determines the increase in %{X}.%{posttag} is X, so * Mon Apr 07 2014 Andrea Veri <averi> - 0.2-4.20140407svn14 * Wed Oct 02 2013 Andrea Veri <averi> - 0.2-3.20130621svn12 * Fri Jun 21 2013 Andrea Veri <averi> - 0.2-2.20130621svn12 * Thu Jun 20 2013 Andrea Veri <averi> - 0.2-1.20130620svn12 Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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: "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/958059-yum-axelget/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python2.7, /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages [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. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [!]: 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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 2 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 %doc. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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: [!]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [-]: 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. [x]: 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. [x]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: yum-axelget-0.2-1.20140407svn14.fc21.noarch.rpm yum-axelget-0.2-1.20140407svn14.fc21.src.rpm yum-axelget.src:33: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/yum-plugins/axelget.py* yum-axelget.src: W: invalid-url Source0: yum-axelget-0.2.20140407svn14.tar.gz 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint yum-axelget 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- yum-axelget (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): axel config(yum-axelget) yum yum-plugin-fastestmirror Provides -------- yum-axelget: config(yum-axelget) yum-axelget Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 958059 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-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
Both fixed. The hardcoded-library-path rpmlint error is still error even after putting the define in place, but trying to rpmlint the yum-utils package (which uses the same define) reported the same issue. The issue is probably related to rpmlint itself, so it's definitely a false positive. The new SRPM: http://averi.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/yum-axelget/yum-axelget-0.2-5.20140407svn14.fc20.src.rpm and SPEC: http://averi.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/yum-axelget/yum-axelget.spec Thanks!
Package approved.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: yum-axelget Short Description: Download accelerator plug-in for Yum Owners: averi Branches: f20 el7 InitialCC: averi
Git done (by process-git-requests).
yum-axelget-0.2-5.20140407svn14.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/yum-axelget-0.2-5.20140407svn14.fc20
yum-axelget-1.0.4-1.20140414git90159ff.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/yum-axelget-1.0.4-1.20140414git90159ff.fc20
yum-axelget-1.0.4-1.20140414git90159ff.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository.
yum-axelget-1.0.4-1.20140414git90159ff.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.