[Bug 464047] Review Request for libprojectM
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=464047
Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Comment #5 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-10-25
03:04:14 EDT ---
Hey Jameson, I'd like to help you get the package in shape. Here are my notes:
* rpmlint output: I didn't get those unused-direct-shlib-dependency warnings
but I got this output:
libprojectM.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/libprojectM-1.2.0/ChangeLog
libprojectM.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/share/projectM/fonts/Vera.ttf ../../fonts/bitstream-vera/Vera.ttf
libprojectM.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/share/projectM/fonts/VeraMono.ttf ../../fonts/bitstream-vera/VeraMono.ttf
libprojectM-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
The first warning can be fixed via
sed -i 's/\r//' ChangeLog
The other warnings can be ignored.
* Source0 link needs corrected.
* The license should be LGPLv2+ since the source files say "any later version".
Also please recommend upstream to put a license file in their tarball.
* Afaik we usually don't put a BuildRequires (BR) in sub-packages. BR:
pkgconfig is redundant anyways because ftgl-devel will pull that up. Also I
don't think BR:kdelibs is necessary. Am I wrong?
* Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for
directory ownership and usability).
* Requires: ftgl and glew are also redundant. RPM should pick them up itself.
* Is Requires: cmake (in the devel subpackage) really necessary?
* You are creating but not owning %{_datadir}/projectM/ and
%{_includedir}/%{name}/ directories. Those need fixed.
* This part can be taken off:
%if "%{_lib}" == "lib64"
-DLIB_SUFFIX=64 \
%endif
.
* Note that, ideally, packagers should put comments in the SPEC files to tell
what the patches do, or why they are there.
Well that's all for now. I hope this will be useful for you.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 464047] Review Request for libprojectM
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=464047 --- Comment #6 from Jameson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-10-29 00:47:35 EDT --- Ok... I've got updated files in the same places. I believe I have corrected all the issues above. I'll e-mail upstream, and see if I can get them to include the license in the tarball, and use the corrected ChangeLog if possible. Thanks for the help. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 464047] Review Request for libprojectM
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=464047 --- Comment #7 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-10-29 01:18:06 EDT --- No problem, but you should provide the new links, since for every update you need to bump the release version and that would make at least the old SRPM link obsolete. Also, for every update you need to explain what you did in the %changelog. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 464047] Review Request for libprojectM
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=464047 --- Comment #8 from Jameson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-10-29 01:29:42 EDT --- I didn't realize that it was important to bump the release version while still under review. the new SRPM can be found here: http://www.vtscrew.com/libprojectM-1.2.0-3.fc9.src.rpm Thanks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 464047] Review Request for libprojectM
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=464047
Mamoru Tasaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #9 from Mamoru Tasaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-10-30 16:20:40 EDT
---
Well, as this is NEEDSPONSOR ticket and from Orcan's request
(Orcan, thanks for your pre-remark)
! License
- Well, this can be ignored for now but actually
Parser.cpp looks like under GPLv2+ because of
copy and paste mistake (perhaps...)
Please ask upstream to fix the license clause
on this file.
* About Patch1 (perhaps CRLF issue)
- Well, such "huge" patch is not desired (here I say
"huge" because this patch changes the whole of the
text file).
This patch gives us the impression that you changed
the whole of upstream ChangeLog by your some intention.
For this case please use "sed" instead of creating patch
to aviod creating such huge patch and to show that
you actually used sed to fix CRLF issue and did not
do anything.
* cmake build log
- For cmake please use
-
make %{?_smp_mflags} VERBOSE=1
-
to make build.log more verbose (so that we can check
if Fedora specific compilation flags are correctly honored,
for example).
* pkgconfig .pc file
- libprojectM.pc.in contains
-
1 [EMAIL PROTECTED]@
2 [EMAIL PROTECTED]@
3 [EMAIL PROTECTED]@/lib
-
It looks that libdir is expanded as /usr/lib even on 64 bits
architecture so this is perhaps wrong.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 464047] Review Request for libprojectM
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=464047 --- Comment #10 from Jameson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-10-31 22:06:47 EDT --- Update SPEC in the same location, and new SRPM: http://www.vtscrew.com/libprojectM-1.2.0-4.fc9.src.rpm I haven't got with upstream about that license issue, yet, but I will when I pass them my patch for the .pc file issue. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 464047] Review Request for libprojectM
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=464047 --- Comment #11 from Mamoru Tasaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-01 08:40:49 EDT --- (In reply to comment #10) > Update SPEC in the same location, and new SRPM: > http://www.vtscrew.com/libprojectM-1.2.0-4.fc9.src.rpm Seems 404... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 464047] Review Request for libprojectM
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=464047 --- Comment #12 from Jameson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-03 18:02:43 EDT --- Sorry about that... I must've been on the wrong machine when I tried to copy it, or something. It's there now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 464047] Review Request for libprojectM
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=464047
--- Comment #13 from Mamoru Tasaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-04 11:14:17 EDT
---
For -4:
* About Patch1 (libprojectM-pc-libsuffix.patch)
- Well, with this patch LIB_INSTALL_DIR itself is expanded
as /usr/lib{,64}, so the created libprojectM.pc contains
-
3 libdir=/usr//usr/lib
-
(on i386). The correct line is "libdir=/usr/lib" (on i386).
* About removing CRLF line
-
sed -i 's/\r//' ChangeLog
-
- Please move this line to %prep (for --short-circuit issue)
Other things seem okay.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 464047] Review Request for libprojectM
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=464047 --- Comment #14 from Jameson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-04 19:52:46 EDT --- Yeah, I upset myself with that libprojectM.pc issue because I originally planed on adding @LIBSUFFIX@ to that line, but I only defined the patch in the SPEC and never executed it. I didn't know why it didn't work, so I switched it to @LIB_INSTALL_DIR@, and was in disbelief that it still wasn't working until I noticed the patch command was missing. That's why it wound up the way it did. Anyway, all is well now. The SPEC is in the usual location, and the SRPM is here: http://www.vtscrew.com/libprojectM-1.2.0-5.fc9.src.rpm Thanks for all the help. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 464047] Review Request for libprojectM
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=464047 Mamoru Tasaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #15 from Mamoru Tasaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-05 05:59:18 EDT --- Okay. + This package itself is now okay + As written on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/HowToGetSponsored new packagers to be sponsored are required to either - submit another review request - or do a pre-review of other person's review request You have already other review requests. While there may be some issues to fix, they seems good to some extent. --- This package (libprojectM) is APPROVED by mtasaka --- Please follow the procedure written on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join from "Get a Fedora Account". After you request for sponsorship a mail will be sent to sponsor members automatically (which is invisible for you) which notifies that you need a sponsor. After that, please also write on this bug for confirmation that you requested for sponsorship and your FAS (Fedora Account System) name. Then I will sponsor you. If you want to import this package into Fedora 8/9, you also have to look at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UpdatesSystem/Bodhi-info-DRAFT (after once you rebuilt this package on koji Fedora rebuilding system). If you have questions, please ask me. Orcan, thanks you for pre-review. If you want to review other libprojectM related packages, it is okay now and I would appreciate it. Also thanks to Jason for pre-review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 464047] Review Request for libprojectM
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=464047 --- Comment #16 from Jameson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-05 06:43:17 EDT --- I have applied for sponsorship. My Fedora account is ImNtReal. I verified with upstream that this entire package should be LGPL, so that must have been a typo in Parser.cpp. Patching the license in the source seems like it would be inappropriate for us, so unless you have any other advice about that, I'll leave it to be fixed upstream. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 464047] Review Request for libprojectM
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=464047 --- Comment #17 from Mamoru Tasaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-05 07:03:35 EDT --- Okay. Now I am sponsoring you. Please follow "Join" wiki again. (In reply to comment #16) > Patching the license in the source seems like it would be > inappropriate for us, so unless you have any other advice about that, I'll > leave it to be fixed upstream. Yes, patching against license text is inappropriate. While I think I can ignore this for now, please ask the upstream to fix typo in the next version. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 464047] Review Request for libprojectM
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=464047 --- Comment #18 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-05 09:46:21 EDT --- Thank you Mamoru, I will start reviewing the other projectM packages sometime this week. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 464047] Review Request for libprojectM
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=464047 --- Comment #19 from Jameson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-05 14:56:26 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: libprojectM Short Description: music visualization library Owners: imntreal Branches: F-8 F-9 InitialCC: imntreal -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 464047] Review Request for libprojectM
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=464047 Jameson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 464047] Review Request for libprojectM
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=464047 Kevin Fenzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #20 from Kevin Fenzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-05 17:39:42 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 464047] Review Request for libprojectM
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=464047 Jameson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #21 from Jameson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-07 00:56:28 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: libprojectM New Branches: F-10 Owners: imntreal I need the new branch. Thanks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 464047] Review Request for libprojectM
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=464047 Mamoru Tasaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? | --- Comment #22 from Mamoru Tasaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-07 01:15:08 EDT --- Currently mass branching is proceeding and the request for F-10 branch is not needed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 464047] Review Request for libprojectM
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=464047 --- Comment #23 from Mamoru Tasaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-07 02:05:59 EDT --- CVS outrage is over and F-10 branch is created for libprojectM. So now you can rebuild libprojectM for also F-11/10. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 464047] Review Request for libprojectM
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=464047 --- Comment #24 from Jameson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-07 02:29:21 EDT --- I just did a cvs update, but I still don't seem to have a F-10 branch. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 464047] Review Request for libprojectM
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=464047 --- Comment #25 from Jameson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-07 02:35:21 EDT --- Nevermind, I re-ran the fedora-cvs script, and it found it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 464047] Review Request for libprojectM
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=464047 --- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-07 02:59:33 EDT --- libprojectM-1.2.0-5.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libprojectM-1.2.0-5.fc9 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 464047] Review Request for libprojectM
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=464047 --- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-07 02:58:15 EDT --- libprojectM-1.2.0-5.fc8 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 8. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libprojectM-1.2.0-5.fc8 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 464047] Review Request for libprojectM
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=464047 --- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-07 03:00:31 EDT --- libprojectM-1.2.0-5.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libprojectM-1.2.0-5.fc10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 464047] Review Request for libprojectM
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=464047 Mamoru Tasaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #29 from Mamoru Tasaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-07 03:58:22 EDT --- Okay, thanks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 464047] Review Request for libprojectM
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=464047 --- Comment #30 from Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-07 21:11:28 EDT --- libprojectM-1.2.0-5.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 464047] Review Request for libprojectM
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=464047 --- Comment #31 from Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-07 21:11:53 EDT --- libprojectM-1.2.0-5.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 464047] Review Request for libprojectM
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=464047 --- Comment #32 from Fedora Update System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-22 11:54:38 EDT --- libprojectM-1.2.0-5.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 464047] Review Request for libprojectM
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=464047 --- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-10-01 11:47:12 EDT --- Shouldn't these projectM review tickets have some dependencies between them? It doesn't seem possible to review projectM-jack without first having at least libprojectM-qt in the distribution first. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 464047] Review Request for libprojectM
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=464047 --- Comment #2 from Jameson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-10-01 20:06:49 EDT --- I wasn't sure if I should submit them all at once so functionality could be reviewed or if I should wait until the dependancies made it into Fedora before submitting the others, so they could be tested more easily. Unfortunately the libprojectM package has pretty much no functionality on its own. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 464047] Review Request for libprojectM
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=464047 --- Comment #3 from Jason Tibbitts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-10-01 20:25:08 EDT --- Well, sure, but the point is that you use the "Depends on" fields of the various tickets to indicate the order in which they must be reviewed. I think this ticket should be the first one but without looking at the specs or trying to build, I can't be sure. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 464047] Review Request for libprojectM
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=464047 Jameson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||464049 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 464047] Review Request for libprojectM
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=464047 Jameson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||464050 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 464047] Review Request for libprojectM
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=464047 --- Comment #4 from Jameson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-10-01 20:39:26 EDT --- Oh, I got ya. Thanks. Like I said, I'm new to this. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
