https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1650943
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> ---
biosig4c++-1.9.3-1.git94296e0.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1650943
Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed| |2018-12-16 02:24:33
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> ---
biosig4c++-1.9.3-1.git94296e0.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1441843
--- Comment #34 from Jonathan Dieter <jdieter(a)gmail.com> ---
(In reply to greg.hellings from comment #33)
> > The issues that still need to be resolved:
> >
> > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
> > License should be GPLv3+ and BSD
>
> I'm not sure why you're flagging it as needing BSD license. I don't see any
> reference to the BSD license in the code, am I missing it somewhere?
linchpin-1.6.4/linchpin/shell/click_default_group.py
is under a BSD license
> > [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
> > The comment below indicates that these requirements might belong to
> > the linchpin-doc subpackage? If so, they need to be listed as
> > requirements for the subpackage, not the primary package
> > # Extra sub-package includes
> > Requires: beaker-client
> > Requires: python3-libvirt
> > Requires: python3-lxml
> >
>
> The Requires listed are from the optional extras python packages. In pip
> these would be installed with `pip install linhcpin[beaker]` or `pip install
> linchpin[libvirt]`. They could be listed as "Recommends" or such, but the
> product would be completely non-functional without them so I opted to add
> them directly.
Ok, that's grand.
> > [!]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
> > Note: linchpin-doc contains font files. If it's possible to add them
> > as dependencies instead, we really should
>
> The docs are intended to be opened from a browser and/or served from a
> static website pointing to the root of the docs folder. I don't know how
> easily those files can be made to depend on each other. It might require me
> to post-process the HTML to point it at the files in the
> python3-sphinx_rtd_theme package (which is the Sphix theme used to build
> these docs). I'll give that some thought and experimentation.
Thanks so much. I'd definitely feel better about not bundling the font files
if it's at all possible to avoid.
> > [!]: If you build a python module you should use the %python_provide macro
> > I'm not completely clear if this is meant to be imported by other
> > programs, but, if so, we should be using %python_provide
>
> We are not building a Python module that is intended to be importable by
> another Python package. This is really just providing the executable in a
> Python wrapper is that all of its dependencies can easily be managed. I can
> still add the python provides if it should be there.
No, given your explanation, I don't think that's necessary.
(In reply to Jonathan Dieter from comment #32)
>
> >
> > [!]: Package functions as described.
> > When I run linchpin, the following happens:
> > $ linchpin
> > Traceback (most recent call last):
> > File "/usr/bin/linchpin", line 11, in <module>
> > load_entry_point('linchpin==1.6.4', 'console_scripts',
> > 'linchpin')()
> > File "/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/pkg_resources/__init__.py",
> > line 484, in load_entry_point
> > return get_distribution(dist).load_entry_point(group, name)
> > File "/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/pkg_resources/__init__.py",
> > line 2714, in load_entry_point
> > return ep.load()
> > File "/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/pkg_resources/__init__.py",
> > line 2332, in load
> > return self.resolve()
> > File "/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/pkg_resources/__init__.py",
> > line 2338, in resolve
> > module = __import__(self.module_name, fromlist=['__name__'],
> > level=0)
> > File "/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/linchpin/shell/__init__.py",
> > line 12, in <module>
> > from linchpin.cli import LinchpinCli
> > File "/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/linchpin/cli/__init__.py",
> > line 16, in <module>
> > from linchpin.fetch import FETCH_CLASS
> > File "/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/linchpin/fetch/__init__.py",
> > line 1, in <module>
> > from fetch_local import FetchLocal
> > ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'fetch_local'
>
> Well that's disturbing. The upstream package seems to suffer from the same
> issue when installed directly with pip to a virtualenv, and the problem
> persists in the latest bugfix. I've reported this upstream as
> https://github.com/CentOS-PaaS-SIG/linchpin/issues/853 and am looking into a
> fix.
Thanks.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1416705
Randy Barlow <rbarlow(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |NEW
Blocks| |182235 (FE-Legal)
Assignee|randy(a)electronsweatshop.com |nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
Flags|fedora-review? |
--- Comment #21 from Randy Barlow <rbarlow(a)redhat.com> ---
The source tarball still contains licenses in Fedora's bad license list. For
example, kivy-1.10.1/examples/audio/main.py is Creative Commons Sampling Plus
Public License (v1.0).
I need to unassign myself from this review as I won't have time to attend to it
in the near future.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Bad_Licenses_2
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182235
[Bug 182235] Fedora Legal Tracker
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1659703
Bug ID: 1659703
Summary: Review Request: rust-crossbeam-channel0.2 -
Multi-producer multi-consumer channels for message
passing
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: Package Review
Assignee: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
Reporter: i.gnatenko.brain(a)gmail.com
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora
Spec URL:
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rust-crossbeam-channel0.…
SRPM URL:
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rust-crossbeam-channel0.…
Description:
Multi-producer multi-consumer channels for message passing
Fedora Account System Username: ignatenkobrain
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component