https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546 --- Comment #32 from Gustavo Lima Chaves <gustavo.lima.chaves@xxxxxxxxx> --- > Hi Gustavo, Hi, Paulo. > > My concern when asking if you plan to package other software is > that sometimes, getting sponsored may not be a so easy task :) > and sometimes one could have just one package in Fedora, and forget > about it. > People usually starts with a smaller package, and participate > a lot on informal reviews, to show knowledge of the work flow > and how to create good quality rpm packages; what an upstream > developer may not have enough time to do. I indeed have a lot of my time spent on development, but my intention is to be responsible for the package at all times, naturally, coming in pronto to fix any issue the arise and always doing updates. I can try better to help on reviewing other packages too, but being a full time packager is not possible for me :(. Is that a blocker? > > > > About the permissions issue, I did run: > > $ fedora-review -b 1264546 > > on this setup: > > $ ll /etc/mock/default.cfg > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 25 Oct 4 2014 /etc/mock/default.cfg -> fedora-rawhide-x86_64.cfg > > and my computer is also running rawhide (as of 2 weeks ago). > You also saw it in #c12 > """ > libsoletta.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/soletta/modules/linux-micro/network-up.so 775 > """ > I did a quick search, looks like mock uses an umask to group > writable files since > https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/mock.git/commit/?id=6533774ebda67addfb6e701246f3a96c5e62bcd9 > The install command by default does not give group write > permission, while "cp -p" copies it exactly. I think the issue is now gone with the removal of the "cp -p" part. > > > > Once checking the next srpm, with %check enabled, subpackages > renamed, etc, I can assign this bug to myself, and do at least > one more review. > Unless someone else wants to be your sponsor :) Nice! I hope you did not step back on the idea of sponsoring us :) Now for the status update. We're now o beta8, where I fixed so check issues we were having. The thing is I could not advance we would have issues in the arm build (now getting an arm VM to investigate better). Also, copr's kernel does not have crypto_user support, what we used in the tests, too. beta9 tag was rolled for that -- openssl backend is now the default for message digest in Soletta. Besides the issues on the arm build, here go what we got now, so at least the rest of the SRPM is reviewed: New spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/solettaproject/soletta-packaging/v5/rpm/soletta.spec New SRPM URL: https://github.com/solettaproject/soletta-packaging/releases/download/v5/soletta-0.0.1.beta8-1.fc22.src.rpm koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11518781 I wish to keep, for now, the sole changelog line (before we get this right), and because the version changed, the release is still 1. I'll add an attachment with the diff from v4 to v5 of the spec. -- 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 _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review