https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151747
pjp pj.pan...@yahoo.co.in changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152245
--- Comment #1 from Michal Srb m...@redhat.com ---
Similarly as in unsafe-mock review. This package doesn't make much sense in
Fedora, as we have Java 8 (f21+). It's only a build-time dependency of JRuby
and it can be safely omitted when
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152804
Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rc040...@freenet.de
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152804
--- Comment #7 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de ---
(In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #6)
That said, I regret not to be able to have negative feelings on this
package. In short, I feel this package should not be included into
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152804
Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||panem...@gmail.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152897
Bug ID: 1152897
Summary: Review Request: python-ndg-httpsclient - Provides
enhanced HTTPS support for httplib and urllib2 using
PyOpenSSL
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151711
--- Comment #5 from Eugene A. Pivnev ti.eug...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #3)
(In reply to Kevin Kofler from comment #2)
(As also noted by Ralf, but with more details, thus he was quicker:)
Actually, I read
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1150504
Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1132356
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
perl-Mo-0.39-1.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Mo-0.39-1.el7
--
You are receiving this mail because:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1150504
Dmitry Tantsur divius.ins...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151711
--- Comment #6 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de ---
(In reply to Eugene A. Pivnev from comment #5)
Hm... lxqt-0.8.0 requires libqtxdg-1.0.0,
Where? I do not see such dependency.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152963
Bug ID: 1152963
Summary: Review Request: indi-eqmod - INDI driver for
SkyWatcher
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
Severity: medium
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152966
Bug ID: 1152966
Summary: Review Request: indi-gphoto - INDI driver for many
cameras using gPhoto
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1150504
Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
--
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1150504
--- Comment #11 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com ---
Git done (by process-git-requests).
--
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=1151747
Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
--
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151747
--- Comment #15 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com ---
Git done (by process-git-requests).
--
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=1151464
--- Comment #8 from Andrea Musuruane musur...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Christian Dersch from comment #7)
Detailed review below :) There are two (small) points I want to discuss. One
is the documentation already mentioned by Raphael. Can
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151711
--- Comment #7 from Eugene A. Pivnev ti.eug...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #6)
(In reply to Eugene A. Pivnev from comment #5)
Hm... lxqt-0.8.0 requires libqtxdg-1.0.0,
Where? I do not see such dependency.
Try to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151711
--- Comment #8 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de ---
(In reply to Eugene A. Pivnev from comment #7)
(In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #6)
(In reply to Eugene A. Pivnev from comment #5)
Hm... lxqt-0.8.0 requires
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149390
--- Comment #6 from Tim Lauridsen t...@rasmil.dk ---
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/timlau/dnf-daemon/dnfdaemon-0.3.2-2/dnfdaemon.spec
https://github.com/timlau/dnf-daemon/releases/download/dnfdaemon-0.3.2-2/dnfdaemon-0.3.2-2.fc21.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1138850
Alan Pevec ape...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ape...@redhat.com
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1138850
Alan Pevec ape...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039315
--- Comment #69 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
nuvolaplayer-2.4.3-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nuvolaplayer-2.4.3-2.fc20
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039315
--- Comment #70 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
nuvolaplayer-2.4.3-2.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nuvolaplayer-2.4.3-2.fc21
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039315
--- Comment #71 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
nuvolaplayer-2.4.3-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nuvolaplayer-2.4.3-2.fc20
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039315
--- Comment #72 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
nuvolaplayer-2.4.3-2.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nuvolaplayer-2.4.3-2.fc21
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226209
--- Comment #10 from Michal Hlavinka mhlav...@redhat.com ---
(In reply to Vitezslav Crhonek from comment #9)
Sorry for (very) late response.
rpmlint:
./nut.spec:125: W: macro-in-comment %patch4
./nut.spec:131: W: macro-in-comment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151464
Christian Dersch chrisder...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149390
--- Comment #7 from Tim Lauridsen t...@rasmil.dk ---
https://github.com/timlau/dnf-daemon/releases/download/dnfdaemon-0.3.2-3/dnfdaemon-0.3.2-3.fc21.src.rpm
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/timlau/dnf-daemon/dnfdaemon-0.3.2-3/dnfdaemon.spec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151462
--- Comment #10 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com ---
I see you still missed some of my points like using desktop-file-install and
what Exec I wrote for desktop file. I will post few more issues in spec soon
but meanwhile do some package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152966
--- Comment #1 from Christian Dersch chrisder...@gmail.com ---
Forgot to replace %make_install with make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}
Spec URL: https://lupinix.fedorapeople.org/indi/indi-gphoto.spec
SRPM URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152897
Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152963
--- Comment #1 from Christian Dersch chrisder...@gmail.com ---
Forgot to replace %make_install with make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}
Spec URL: https://lupinix.fedorapeople.org/indi/indi-eqmod.spec
SRPM URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1153023
Michal Srb m...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||652183 (FE-JAVASIG)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1153023
Bug ID: 1153023
Summary: Review Request:
jenkins-antisamy-markup-formatter-plugin - OWASP
Markup Formatter Plugin for Jenkins
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151464
--- Comment #10 from Andrea Musuruane musur...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Christian Dersch from comment #9)
Approved! I just wanted you to point out these (cosmetic) parts. The package
is fine, I mentioned this above and set the review +
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151464
Andrea Musuruane musur...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1150393
--- Comment #6 from Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com ---
Other sources like 404.html 50x.html contains Powered by nginx. Shouldn't it be
powered by Tengine?
tengine.init contains nginx.conf and calling of nginx, which is probably fine,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152897
--- Comment #2 from Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com ---
- You should use python2-devel, not python-devel [1]
- I think you shouldn't replace the underscore in package name. [2] says, that
packages where the upstream name naturally
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152804
Scott Talbert s...@techie.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152653
Scott Talbert s...@techie.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||s...@techie.net
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1150393
--- Comment #7 from Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com ---
Only man page is called nginx, which doesn't seem right. At least you should
create link from tengine man page to this nginx.
You are missing check section in specfile. Did you
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152897
--- Comment #3 from Miro Hrončok mhron...@redhat.com ---
Fixed the name, python2-devel. Also noticed the module uses entrypoints so
requiring setuptools for runtime as well.
Spec URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152897
Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152897
Miro Hrončok mhron...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Review Request: |Review Request:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1150666
Jan Synacek jsyna...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152804
--- Comment #10 from Matthew Miller mat...@redhat.com ---
Heh, I was going to make the suggestion of pulling out a .h file — that
encourages people to use it as a shared library (and, prevents it from being
compiled in by accident).
--
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1150666
Jan Synacek jsyna...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jsyna...@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151464
--- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com ---
Git done (by process-git-requests).
--
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=1151464
Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
--
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1140403
Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On|1141506 |
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1153074
Bug ID: 1153074
Summary: Review Request: perl-Sereal-Encoder - Perl
serialization into Serial format
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1153074
Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On||1152057
Referenced
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1153074
Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On||1152653
Referenced
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152653
Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||1153074
Referenced
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152057
Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||1153074
Referenced
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755510
--- Comment #66 from nicolas.vievi...@univ-valenciennes.fr ---
(In reply to Jeff Peeler from comment #65)
You don't need to ask permission for reviewing other packages.
Ok.
Just review
the package so that you can show a sponsor, Hey, I
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135654
--- Comment #4 from Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #3)
It is not just inconvenient to hardcode such a dependency in a Documentation
package, so the package cannot be installed without pulling
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1153023
gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||punto...@libero.it
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1153023
gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151747
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
onionshare-0.6-5.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/onionshare-0.6-5.fc19
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151747
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
onionshare-0.6-5.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/onionshare-0.6-5.el7
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151747
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
onionshare-0.6-6.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/onionshare-0.6-6.el6
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151747
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
onionshare-0.6-5.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/onionshare-0.6-5.fc21
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151747
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
onionshare-0.6-5.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/onionshare-0.6-5.fc20
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1153023
--- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1153023
--- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it ---
Source package does not include license text. Please, you SHOULD query upstream
to include it.
Found non-blocking issues, approved
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1153023
--- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it ---
Please fix also: W: strange-permission LICENSE-MIT.txt 0444L
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152057
--- Comment #3 from Florian der-flo Lehner d...@der-flo.net ---
Hi!
Quote from
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text:
Common licenses that require including their texts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1153302
Bug ID: 1153302
Summary: Review Request: tilda - A Gtk based drop down terminal
for Linux and Unix
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1153302
Christian Dersch chrisder...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1153302
Christian Dersch chrisder...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1129220
--- Comment #11 from Dams an...@livna.org ---
Due to a dual bug in both bash ( which was actually fun to trace and report:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-bash/2014-10/msg00160.html ) and the
unittest script (patch is inside the srpm),
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039315
--- Comment #73 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
nuvolaplayer-2.4.3-3.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nuvolaplayer-2.4.3-3.fc21
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135654
--- Comment #5 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net ---
bug 831383
Fixed in 2012. gcc is not multilib anymore, i.e. no multilib package causes the
multilib repo composer to pull it it anymore.
# yum list gcc
Loaded plugins:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1126046
Devrim GÜNDÜZ dev...@gunduz.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(dev...@gunduz.org |
|)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039315
--- Comment #74 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
nuvolaplayer-2.4.3-3.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nuvolaplayer-2.4.3-3.fc20
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151464
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151464
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
ballerburg-1.1.0-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ballerburg-1.1.0-2.fc20
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151464
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
ballerburg-1.1.0-2.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ballerburg-1.1.0-2.fc21
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149566
Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152653
Scott Talbert s...@techie.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149566
--- Comment #4 from David Brown david.br...@pnnl.gov ---
The first bit is a misspelling, it should be libibumad-devel and
libibmad-devel. Those aren't supported in Fedora, not sure why, but they are
supported in RHEL. I was going to look into
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152653
--- Comment #3 from Scott Talbert s...@techie.net ---
A few initial comments.
Release:0.1.%{miniz_rc}%{?dist}
I'm thinking this should just be 1.%{miniz_rc}%{?dist} since this is a
post-release (ie, 1.15r4 came after 1.15) rather than a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=996780
b...@redhat.com b...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs?
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1147269
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141841
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
golang-googlecode-google-api-client-0-0.2.alpha.hge1c259484b49.fc20 has been
pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151072
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1133198
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152312
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135502
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1148365
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152653
--- Comment #4 from Scott Talbert s...@techie.net ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Development (unversioned) .so files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152653
Scott Talbert s...@techie.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||1085059
Referenced
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149566
--- Comment #5 from David Brown david.br...@pnnl.gov ---
Here's the epel-6 build of the same spec.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7879588
slurm-slurmdbd.x86_64: E: no-status-entry /etc/rc.d/init.d/slurmdbd
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1147149
Matěj Cepl mc...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1114267
Bug 1114267 depends on bug 1147149, which changed state.
Bug 1147149 Summary: Review Request: python-cryptography-vectors - Test vectors
for the cryptography package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1147149
What
98 matches
Mail list logo
