[Bug 225615] Merge Review: binutils
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=225615 --- Comment #21 from Jon Ciesla 2011-10-18 12:22:56 EDT --- Thanks! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 225615] Merge Review: binutils
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=225615 Nick Clifton changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ni...@redhat.com --- Comment #20 from Nick Clifton 2011-10-18 12:06:59 EDT --- Hi Jon, I have opened a fpc ticket to see if the binutils can be granted an exception to the library packaging rules. I am not sure that it will pan out, but I feel that it is worth a try. https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/109 Cheers Nick -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 225615] Merge Review: binutils
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=225615 --- Comment #19 from Jon Ciesla 2011-10-18 11:55:48 EDT --- Ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 225615] Merge Review: binutils
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=225615 --- Comment #18 from Jon Ciesla 2011-06-17 10:57:50 EDT --- Ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 225615] Merge Review: binutils
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=225615 --- Comment #17 from Jon Ciesla 2011-03-31 12:38:32 EDT --- Any updates on the bundling? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 225615] Merge Review: binutils
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=225615 --- Comment #16 from Till Maas 2010-04-29 17:14:15 EDT --- (In reply to comment #15) > The question about bundling libiberty doesn't make any sense, libiberty it a > library that is bundled with any package that needs it. Furthermore, src > repository (together with gcc repository) is the libiberty upstream. Then an exception needs to be granted for, because there is currently none: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries#Packages_granted_exceptions I opened a ticket for this at the fesco trac. Can you maybe monitor it and answer any open questions about it, since you are the one who knows why it should be bundled? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 225615] Merge Review: binutils
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=225615 --- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek 2010-04-29 16:20:01 EDT --- The question about bundling libiberty doesn't make any sense, libiberty it a library that is bundled with any package that needs it. Furthermore, src repository (together with gcc repository) is the libiberty upstream. And, binutils now has a binutils-static subpackage. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 225615] Merge Review: binutils
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=225615 --- Comment #14 from Jon Ciesla 2010-04-29 16:11:22 EDT --- Ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 225615] Merge Review: binutils
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=225615 --- Comment #13 from Jan Kratochvil 2010-03-10 15:15:54 EST --- There should also be - IMO: License: GPLv3+ and GPLv3+ with exceptions and GPLv2+ and GPLv2+ with exceptions and GPL+ and LGPLv2+ and GFDL and Public Domain following: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines GPLv3+ with exceptions: texinfo/texinfo.tex GPLv2+ with exceptions: libtool.m4 GPL+: include/opcode/arm.h Other licenses are easy to find. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 225615] Merge Review: binutils
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=225615 --- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla 2010-01-19 10:45:28 EST --- Good catch Till, an oversight on my part. These indeed need to be resolved. I'd also say use the system libiberty and remove the other .a. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 225615] Merge Review: binutils
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=225615 Till Maas changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||Reopened Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED CC||opensou...@till.name Resolution|RAWHIDE | Flag|fedora-review+ |fedora-review- --- Comment #11 from Till Maas 2010-01-17 13:46:55 EST --- I object that the review is completed, the -static problem was not solved. In comment:6 it was staid that libiberty.a should be removed and probably the other .a files, too, as far as I understand the comment. But they are still shipped and there is also not -static package, so something is obviously wrong. Btw. is there a FESCo exception to allow bundling libiberty? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Duplication_of_system_libraries -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
