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=508836
--- Comment #60 from Fedora Update System
2009-08-25 00:42:13 EDT ---
colossus-0.9.1-2.20090817svn4489.fc11 has been pushe
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=508836
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
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=508836
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
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=508836
--- Comment #59 from Fedora Update System
2009-08-25 00:31:34 EDT ---
colossus-0.9.1-2.20090817svn4489.fc10 has been pushe
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=508836
--- Comment #57 from Fedora Update System
2009-08-20 16:56:42 EDT ---
colossus-0.9.1-2.20090817svn4489.fc11 has been pushe
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=508836
--- Comment #58 from Fedora Update System
2009-08-20 16:56:49 EDT ---
colossus-0.9.1-2.20090817svn4489.fc10 has been pushe
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=508836
--- Comment #55 from Fedora Update System
2009-08-19 09:48:50 EDT ---
colossus-0.9.1-2.20090817svn4489.fc11 has been submi
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=508836
--- Comment #56 from Fedora Update System
2009-08-19 09:50:43 EDT ---
colossus-0.9.1-2.20090817svn4489.fc10 has been submi
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=508836
--- Comment #53 from Fedora Update System
2009-08-18 17:13:50 EDT ---
colossus-0.9.1-1.20090817svn4489.fc10 has been pushe
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=508836
--- Comment #54 from Fedora Update System
2009-08-18 17:16:30 EDT ---
colossus-0.9.1-1.20090817svn4489.fc11 has been pushe
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=508836
--- Comment #52 from Fedora Update System
2009-08-17 18:29:22 EDT ---
colossus-0.9.1-1.20090817svn4489.fc10 has been submi
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=508836
--- Comment #51 from Fedora Update System
2009-08-17 18:25:54 EDT ---
colossus-0.9.1-1.20090817svn4489.fc11 has been submi
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=508836
--- Comment #50 from Fedora Update System
2009-08-17 18:02:33 EDT ---
colossus-0.9.0-2.20090810svn4482.fc11 has been pushe
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=508836
--- Comment #49 from Fedora Update System
2009-08-17 17:57:45 EDT ---
colossus-0.9.0-2.20090810svn4482.fc10 has been pushe
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=508836
--- Comment #48 from Fedora Update System
2009-08-16 14:50:00 EDT ---
colossus-0.9.0-2.20090810svn4482.fc10 has been submi
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=508836
--- Comment #47 from Fedora Update System
2009-08-16 14:40:18 EDT ---
colossus-0.9.0-2.20090810svn4482.fc11 has been submi
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=508836
--- Comment #46 from Fedora Update System
2009-08-11 18:35:28 EDT ---
colossus-0.9.0-1.20090810svn4482.fc10 has been pushe
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=508836
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
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=508836
--- Comment #44 from Fedora Update System
2009-08-11 08:50:12 EDT ---
colossus-0.9.0-1.20090810svn4482.fc10 has been submi
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=508836
--- Comment #43 from Fedora Update System
2009-08-11 08:49:08 EDT ---
colossus-0.9.0-1.20090810svn4482.fc11 has been submi
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=508836
--- Comment #42 from Bruno Wolff III 2009-07-15 12:30:31 EDT
---
Since colossus is in rawhide now, I think it is safe to c
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=508836
--- Comment #41 from Bruno Wolff III 2009-07-12 23:55:25 EDT
---
I have imported colossus into F10, F11 and devel. A build
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=508836
Jason Tibbitts changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
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=508836
Bruno Wolff III changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
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=508836
--- Comment #36 from Bruno Wolff III 2009-07-12 22:24:52 EDT
---
I made the changes. I moved the scriptlets down and chang
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=508836
--- Comment #40 from Bruno Wolff III 2009-07-12 22:50:19 EDT
---
Yeah I read further and it looks like it is pretty safe t
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=508836
--- Comment #38 from Bruno Wolff III 2009-07-12 22:33:26 EDT
---
Please use a local case 'c' in colossus. I capitalized th
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=508836
--- Comment #35 from Jason Tibbitts 2009-07-12 22:11:21
EDT ---
I had the most to check with this ticket, so I left it for
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=508836
--- Comment #34 from Bruno Wolff III 2009-07-12 21:12:07 EDT
---
I'll look at the version issue before finishing up. I am
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=508836
Jason Tibbitts changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
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=508836
--- Comment #32 from Bruno Wolff III 2009-07-11 10:18:40 EDT
---
http://wolff.to/bruno/colossus-0-0.1.20090710svn4432.fc11
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=508836
--- Comment #31 from Jason Tibbitts 2009-07-11 03:50:32
EDT ---
You should post links to the new spec and src.rpm so that
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=508836
--- Comment #30 from Bruno Wolff III 2009-07-10 23:19:34 EDT
---
I changed the version to version 0, got the latest snapsh
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=508836
--- Comment #29 from Bruno Wolff III 2009-07-10 10:10:23 EDT
---
I asked for some more feedback from the packaging list an
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=508836
--- Comment #28 from Bruno Wolff III 2009-07-08 11:03:15 EDT
---
I did a test build against all of the primary architectur
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=508836
--- Comment #27 from Bruno Wolff III 2009-07-08 09:20:39 EDT
---
Bug 510243 has been filed against gjdoc regarding the jav
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=508836
--- Comment #26 from Bruno Wolff III 2009-07-08 09:02:33 EDT
---
The feedback from the developers is that this is the stan
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=508836
--- Comment #25 from Bruno Wolff III 2009-07-07 22:51:05 EDT
---
It looks like some 1.6ism's crept into part of the source
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=508836
--- Comment #24 from Bruno Wolff III 2009-07-07 22:04:47 EDT
---
I now think the javadoc issue is caused by different fail
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=508836
--- Comment #23 from Bruno Wolff III 2009-07-07 21:11:16 EDT
---
I started looking through the build log. I see a couple o
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=508836
--- Comment #22 from Jason Tibbitts 2009-07-07 17:46:43
EDT ---
You should really read through
http://fedoraproject.org/
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=508836
--- Comment #21 from Bruno Wolff III 2009-07-07 17:39:24 EDT
---
Yeah, I was using rpmbuild. Removing all of the developme
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=508836
--- Comment #20 from Jason Tibbitts 2009-07-07 17:24:56
EDT ---
I am doing rawhide builds in mock on x86_64. I did an F11
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=508836
--- Comment #19 from Bruno Wolff III 2009-07-07 16:44:21 EDT
---
I got feedback from one of the developers that might give
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=508836
--- Comment #18 from Bruno Wolff III 2009-07-07 16:32:23 EDT
---
I am still getting stuff in my javadoc. So there is proba
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=508836
Jason Tibbitts changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
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=508836
--- Comment #16 from Bruno Wolff III 2009-07-06 11:14:06 EDT
---
Thanks for the legal review.
If circumstances change lat
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=508836
Tom "spot" Callaway changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
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=508836
--- Comment #14 from Bruno Wolff III 2009-07-01 22:51:51 EDT
---
I found a redundant requires for java and java >= 1.5 . I
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=508836
--- Comment #13 from Bruno Wolff III 2009-07-01 22:31:41 EDT
---
I updated the spec file and put up an updated source rpm
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=508836
--- Comment #12 from Bruno Wolff III 2009-07-01 21:25:34 EDT
---
Looking through some archives on the devel-java lists sug
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=508836
--- Comment #11 from Bruno Wolff III 2009-07-01 20:58:11 EDT
---
I double checked the javadoc rpm and there is stuff in it
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=508836
--- Comment #9 from Bruno Wolff III 2009-07-01 20:12:03 EDT
---
The last time I looked at this I don't think I thought of
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=508836
--- Comment #10 from Bruno Wolff III 2009-07-01 20:12:32 EDT
---
Skip that last comment, it was meant for another bug.
--
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=508836
--- Comment #8 from Bruno Wolff III 2009-07-01 20:02:16 EDT
---
Speed isn't that big of a deal for this app, so I think be
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=508836
--- Comment #7 from Jason Tibbitts 2009-07-01 17:55:15 EDT
---
(In reply to comment #6)
> What I am not sure of is if some
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=508836
--- Comment #6 from Bruno Wolff III 2009-07-01 15:21:52 EDT
---
What I am not sure of is if someone does a build with the
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=508836
--- Comment #5 from Jason Tibbitts 2009-07-01 15:04:52 EDT
---
(In reply to comment #2)
> If I make the package noarch, do
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=508836
--- Comment #4 from Bruno Wolff III 2009-07-01 12:24:37 EDT
---
Further note, the scripts aren't actually in the javadoc p
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=508836
--- Comment #3 from Bruno Wolff III 2009-07-01 12:22:01 EDT
---
Just to track this here, I noticed that the icon cache get
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=508836
--- Comment #2 from Bruno Wolff III 2009-07-01 08:07:20 EDT
---
If I make the package noarch, do I need to take steps to b
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=508836
Jason Tibbitts changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
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=508836
Bruno Wolff III changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
63 matches
Mail list logo
