https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1396761
Bug ID: 1396761 Summary: Review Request: rofi - A window switcher, run dialog and dmenu replacement Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: opensource@till.name Reporter: ignatenko@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org, ignatenko@redhat.com, jakub.jedelsky@gmail.com, murmansksity@gmail.com, nobody@fedoraproject.org, opensource@till.name, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/region51/rofi/rofi.git/plain/... SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/region51/rofi/fedora-rawhide... Description: A popup window switcher roughly based on superswitcher, requiring only xlib and pango. Fedora Account System Username: ignatenkobrain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1396761
--- Comment #1 from Igor Gnatenko ignatenko@redhat.com --- *** Bug 1277260 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1396761
--- Comment #2 from Till Maas opensource@till.name --- - The SRPM URL does not work, the rofi directory does not exist at https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/region51/ - It would be better to use %{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1* instead of %{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1.* as a pattern for the manpage to make it also work if manpages are not compressed.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1396761
--- Comment #3 from Till Maas opensource@till.name --- Also there is a newer upstream release: 1.2.0
And the upstream page says it needs a new maintainer :-(
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1396761
--- Comment #4 from Igor Gnatenko ignatenko@redhat.com --- SPEC: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rofi.spec SRPM: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rofi-1.2.0-1.fc26.src.rpm
Fixed all above and updated to 1.2.0. Also fixed couple of rpmlint complaints.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1396761
Till Maas opensource@till.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #5 from Till Maas opensource@till.name --- I found three issues but they should be easy to fix AFAICS.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues: ======= - There seeem to be tests in the directory test, but there is no %check section. - The executable bit should be removed: rofi.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/rofi/Examples/i3_switch_workspaces.sh - The rofi-sensible-terminal script contains a public domain header, this is not mentioned in the License:-tag in the spec file (add "and Public Domain")
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [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. [X]: 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. [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 30720 bytes in 4 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 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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. [-]: 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. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [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: rofi-1.2.0-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm rofi-debuginfo-1.2.0-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm rofi-1.2.0-1.fc24.src.rpm rofi.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dmenu -> menu, d menu, madmen rofi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US popup -> pop up, pop-up, popular rofi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US superswitcher -> super switcher, super-switcher, switcher rofi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xlib -> lib, glib, x lib rofi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pango -> pang, pangs, panto rofi.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/rofi/Examples/i3_switch_workspaces.sh rofi.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dmenu -> menu, d menu, madmen rofi.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US popup -> pop up, pop-up, popular rofi.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US superswitcher -> super switcher, super-switcher, switcher rofi.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xlib -> lib, glib, x lib rofi.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pango -> pang, pangs, panto 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 11 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: rofi-debuginfo-1.2.0-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory rofi.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dmenu -> menu, d menu, madmen rofi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US popup -> pop up, pop-up, popular rofi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US superswitcher -> super switcher, super-switcher, switcher rofi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xlib -> lib, glib, x lib rofi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pango -> pang, pangs, panto rofi.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/rofi/Examples/i3_switch_workspaces.sh 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
Requires -------- rofi (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/bash libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libstartup-notification-1.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-ewmh.so.2()(64bit) libxcb-icccm.so.4()(64bit) libxcb-render.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-util.so.1()(64bit) libxcb-xinerama.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-xkb.so.1()(64bit) libxcb-xrm.so.0()(64bit) libxcb.so.1()(64bit) libxkbcommon-x11.so.0()(64bit) libxkbcommon-x11.so.0(V_0.5.0)(64bit) libxkbcommon.so.0()(64bit) libxkbcommon.so.0(V_0.5.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
rofi-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- rofi: rofi rofi(x86-64)
rofi-debuginfo: rofi-debuginfo rofi-debuginfo(x86-64)
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/DaveDavenport/rofi/releases/download/1.2.0/rofi-1.2.0.tar... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : da2630e03e319e74fb4ee9594b587f8a5aff43062e8ef3fc689d4bb47310ee7e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : da2630e03e319e74fb4ee9594b587f8a5aff43062e8ef3fc689d4bb47310ee7e
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1396761 Buildroot used: fedora-24-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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1396761
--- Comment #6 from Igor Gnatenko ignatenko@redhat.com --- Sorry for long delay,
SPEC: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rofi.spec SRPM: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rofi-1.3.1-1.fc26.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1396761
--- Comment #7 from Till Maas opensource@till.name --- Sorry for the delay on my side this time :-/
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= Unfortunately there are still some issues: :-/ - The guidelines now seemt to require an outline for the licenses - The checks are ignored instead and the upstream bug is closed - The timestamps of the files modified in %prep are not preserved
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [X]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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. [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. Please add a comment like: # MIT: rofi # Public Domain: rofi-sensible-terminal rofi-theme-selector
[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. [x]: 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. [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 30720 bytes in 4 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 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rofi- debuginfo [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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. The tests are ignored and the upstream bug reporst is closed due to inactivity
[!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. %prep changes files without preserving the timestamps
[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. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [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: rofi-1.3.1-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm rofi-debuginfo-1.3.1-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm rofi-1.3.1-1.fc24.src.rpm rofi.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dmenu -> menu, d menu, madmen rofi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US popup -> pop up, pop-up, popular rofi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US superswitcher -> super switcher, super-switcher, switcher rofi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xlib -> lib, glib, x lib rofi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pango -> pang, pangs, panto rofi.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rofi-theme-selector rofi.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dmenu -> menu, d menu, madmen rofi.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US popup -> pop up, pop-up, popular rofi.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US superswitcher -> super switcher, super-switcher, switcher rofi.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xlib -> lib, glib, x lib rofi.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pango -> pang, pangs, panto 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 11 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: rofi-debuginfo-1.3.1-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory rofi.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dmenu -> menu, d menu, madmen rofi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US popup -> pop up, pop-up, popular rofi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US superswitcher -> super switcher, super-switcher, switcher rofi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xlib -> lib, glib, x lib rofi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pango -> pang, pangs, panto rofi.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rofi-theme-selector 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
Requires -------- rofi (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/bash libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstartup-notification-1.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-ewmh.so.2()(64bit) libxcb-icccm.so.4()(64bit) libxcb-randr.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-render.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-util.so.1()(64bit) libxcb-xinerama.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-xkb.so.1()(64bit) libxcb-xrm.so.0()(64bit) libxcb.so.1()(64bit) libxkbcommon-x11.so.0()(64bit) libxkbcommon-x11.so.0(V_0.5.0)(64bit) libxkbcommon.so.0()(64bit) libxkbcommon.so.0(V_0.5.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
rofi-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- rofi: rofi rofi(x86-64)
rofi-debuginfo: rofi-debuginfo rofi-debuginfo(x86-64)
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/DaveDavenport/rofi/releases/download/1.3.1/rofi-1.3.1.tar... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : da61d2da7e5f4f354da2bfb50ec06b0613d6aba6cf09346a86177f3351db2326 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : da61d2da7e5f4f354da2bfb50ec06b0613d6aba6cf09346a86177f3351db2326
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1396761 Buildroot used: fedora-24-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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1396761
Till Hofmann till.hofmann@posteo.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |till.hofmann@posteo.de Flags| |needinfo?(ignatenko@redhat. | |com)
--- Comment #8 from Till Hofmann till.hofmann@posteo.de --- Is this still active? I just submitted #1509679 without realizing that there was already a review request for rofi.
If it's still active, I'll close mine in favor of yours.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1396761
Igor Gnatenko ignatenko@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(ignatenko@redhat. | |com) |
--- Comment #9 from Igor Gnatenko ignatenko@redhat.com ---
- The guidelines now seemt to require an outline for the licenses
Will add.
- The checks are ignored instead and the upstream bug is closed
While I agree running check is good, I don't really have time to work on it now..
- The timestamps of the files modified in %prep are not preserved
I don't think this is really issue, no one preserves timestamps unfortunately.
If it's still active, I'll close mine in favor of yours.
I would like to get it finally done. So now I promise that I will fix all issues next week!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1396761
--- Comment #10 from Igor Gnatenko ignatenko@redhat.com --- Or, rather, now. Working on it.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1396761
--- Comment #11 from Igor Gnatenko ignatenko@redhat.com --- https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rofi.spec https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rofi-1.4.2-1.fc28.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1396761
--- Comment #12 from Igor Gnatenko ignatenko@redhat.com --- *** Bug 1509679 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1396761
Till Hofmann thofmann@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(opensource@till.n | |ame)
--- Comment #13 from Till Hofmann thofmann@fedoraproject.org --- What's the status here? Till, are you still working on the review? I can help out with the review if you want. It would be nice to see rofi in Fedora :)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1396761
Till Maas opensource@till.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|opensource@till.name |thofmann@fedoraproject.org Flags|needinfo?(opensource@till.n | |ame) |
--- Comment #14 from Till Maas opensource@till.name --- Hey Till, thank you for your offer, please take it from here.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1396761
--- Comment #15 from Till Hofmann thofmann@fedoraproject.org --- You're missing BR: bison
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1396761
--- Comment #16 from Till Hofmann thofmann@fedoraproject.org --- To be more elaborate, the build fails with:
checking for bison... no checking for byacc... no BUILDSTDERR: configure: error: "Failed to find bison"
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1396761
--- Comment #17 from Till Maas opensource@till.name --- Igor, would you please add the BR for bison?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1396761
Till Hofmann thofmann@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(ignatenko@redhat. | |com)
--- Comment #18 from Till Hofmann thofmann@fedoraproject.org --- Igor, what's the status here?
I would submit another review request if you're no longer interested in / have time to packaging rofi.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1396761
--- Comment #19 from Till Hofmann thofmann@fedoraproject.org --- This review seems to be stalled.
@Igor, are you still interested in this package?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1396761
Till Hofmann thofmann@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Blocks| |201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed| |2018-07-20 04:39:11
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449 [Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter response should be blocking this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1396761
Viktor Ashirov vashirov@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |vashirov@redhat.com Flags|needinfo?(ignatenko@redhat. |needinfo?(i.gnatenko.brain@ |com) |gmail.com)
--- Comment #20 from Viktor Ashirov vashirov@redhat.com --- I'd like to see rofi in Fedora someday. Igor, Till, any updates on this?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1396761
--- Comment #21 from Till Hofmann thofmann@fedoraproject.org --- I reopened https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1509679
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org