Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: lthread - A library for multicore/multithread coroutine library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=795054
Summary: Review Request: lthread - A library for multicore/multithread coroutine library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: arangamani.kannan@gmail.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: ---
Spec URL: https://github.com/downloads/arangamani/lthread/lthread.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/downloads/arangamani/lthread/lthread-0.5.0-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: lthread is a multicore/multithread coroutine library written in C. lthread allows you to make blocking calls and expensive computations inside a coroutine as long as you surround your code with lthread_compute_begin()/lthread_compute_end(), hence combining the advantages of coroutines and pthreads.
This is my second package review request, and I am still waiting for sponsorship.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=795054
Arangamanikkannan Manickam arangamani.kannan@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=795054
--- Comment #1 from Arangamanikkannan Manickam arangamani.kannan@gmail.com 2012-02-18 19:26:43 EST --- RPMLINT Output:
[sn0wb1rd@dove-box SPECS]$ rpmlint lthread.spec ../RPMS/x86_64/lthread* ../SRPMS/lthread* lthread.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multicore -> multicolored lthread.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multithread -> multitude lthread.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) coroutine -> co routine, co-routine, routine lthread.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multicore -> multicolored lthread.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multithread -> multitude lthread.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US coroutine -> co routine, co-routine, routine lthread.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US coroutines -> co routines, co-routines, routines lthread.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pthreads -> threads, p threads, thread lthread-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/lthread-0.5.0/src/rbtree.h lthread-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/lthread-0.5.0/src/epoll.c lthread-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/lthread-0.5.0/src/lthread_socket.c lthread-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/lthread-0.5.0/src/rbtree.c lthread-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/lthread-0.5.0/src/lthread_int.h lthread-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/lthread-0.5.0/src/lthread_compute.c lthread-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/lthread-0.5.0/src/poller.h lthread-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/lthread-0.5.0/src/lthread_sched.c lthread-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/lthread-0.5.0/src/time_utils.c lthread-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/lthread-0.5.0/src/lthread.c lthread.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multicore -> multicolored lthread.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multithread -> multitude lthread.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) coroutine -> co routine, co-routine, routine lthread.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multicore -> multicolored lthread.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multithread -> multitude lthread.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US coroutine -> co routine, co-routine, routine lthread.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US coroutines -> co routines, co-routines, routines lthread.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pthreads -> threads, p threads, thread 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 10 errors, 16 warnings.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=795054
--- Comment #2 from Arangamanikkannan Manickam arangamani.kannan@gmail.com 2012-02-18 19:58:01 EST --- Ran the source package in mock build environment and fixed some issues and update the SPEC file and SRPM file. The same link could be used to access the updated files.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=795054
Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(arangamani.kannan | |@gmail.com)
--- Comment #3 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu --- I am triaging old review tickets. I apologize that it has been so long since anyone looked at this ticket, but there are more packages submitted now than the pool of reviewers can handle, and some tickets fall through the cracks.
In order to keep the queue manageable, we need to occasionally find tickets which are not reviewable so as to not waste what reviewer time is available. Accordingly, I'm pinging this ticket and setting NEEDINFO. If you are still interested in having your package reviewed, please do the following:
* Make sure your package still reflects the current status of its upstream.
* Check that your package still builds on current Fedora releases.
* Audit your package versus the current status of the packaging guidelines, current rpmlint and current fedora-review tools.
And, finally, reply, making sure that the NEEDINFO flag gets cleared so that this ticket reappears in the review queue. I can't promise a review if you reply, but by closing out the stale tickets we can devote extra attention to the ones which aren't stale.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=795054
Miroslav Suchý msuchy@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |msuchy@redhat.com
--- Comment #4 from Miroslav Suchý msuchy@redhat.com --- Arangamanikkannan are you still interrested in this package?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=795054
James Hogarth james.hogarth@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED CC| |james.hogarth@gmail.com Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Flags|needinfo?(arangamani.kannan | |@gmail.com) | Last Closed| |2015-12-03 22:51:04
--- Comment #5 from James Hogarth james.hogarth@gmail.com --- As per policy as the requester has not responded to a needs info in over a year closing the bug as a dead review.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor 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.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org