[Bug 675388] Review Request: xmlada - full XML stack for Ada
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=675388 --- Comment #1 from Pavel Zhukov 2011-02-05 05:59:38 EST --- rpmlint output: xmlada.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US schemas -> schema, sachems, schemes xmlada.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://libre.adacore.com/xmlada-gpl-3.2.1-src.tgz HTTP Error 404: Not Found 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. xmlada.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US schemas -> schema, sachems, schemes 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. xmlada-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xml -> XML, cml, ml xmlada-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ada -> Ada, ads, ad xmlada-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675388] Review Request: xmlada - full XML stack for Ada
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=675388 --- Comment #2 from Pavel Zhukov 2011-02-05 17:04:45 EST --- minor changes in directories owning http://landgraf.fedorapeople.org/packages/requested/xmlada/xmlada-3.2.1-4.fc14.src.rpm http://landgraf.fedorapeople.org/packages/requested/xmlada/xmlada.spec -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675388] Review Request: xmlada - full XML stack for Ada
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=675388 Pavel Zhukov changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||675478 -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675388] Review Request: xmlada - full XML stack for Ada
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=675388 Pavel Zhukov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bj...@xn--rombobjrn-67a.se --- Comment #3 from Pavel Zhukov 2011-02-06 11:48:34 EST --- -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675388] Review Request: xmlada - full XML stack for Ada
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=675388 --- Comment #4 from Pavel Zhukov 2011-02-07 15:26:30 EST --- http://landgraf.fedorapeople.org/packages/requested/xmlada/xmlada-3.2.1-5.fc14.src.rpm http://landgraf.fedorapeople.org/packages/requested/xmlada/xmlada.spec fix spec errors (move *.so to -devel) -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675388] Review Request: xmlada - full XML stack for Ada
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=675388 --- Comment #5 from Pavel Zhukov 2011-02-11 13:10:11 EST --- new build gpr files move from to /usr/share/gpr http://landgraf.fedorapeople.org/packages/requested/xmlada/xmlada.spec http://landgraf.fedorapeople.org/packages/requested/xmlada/xmlada-3.2.1-6.fc14.src.rpm -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675388] Review Request: xmlada - full XML stack for Ada
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=675388
Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||kr...@land.ru
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|kr...@land.ru
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #6 from Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich 2011-02-18 03:55:59
EST ---
Take this.
DESTDIR patch contain usless ${}
Liscence is GPLv2_+_
There is a python script without python dep.
--
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.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675388] Review Request: xmlada - full XML stack for Ada
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=675388 --- Comment #7 from Jason Tibbitts 2011-02-18 09:48:39 EST --- Please wait until the ada packaging guidelines have at least been discussed by the packaging committee before approving 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675388] Review Request: xmlada - full XML stack for Ada
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=675388 Orion Poplawski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||or...@cora.nwra.com --- Comment #8 from Orion Poplawski 2011-02-18 10:19:52 EST --- Is that likely to happen anytime soon? I don't even see a proposal? I'd like to see something too for help with the plplot-ada sub-package. -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675388] Review Request: xmlada - full XML stack for Ada
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=675388 --- Comment #9 from Pavel Zhukov 2011-02-18 11:01:47 EST --- Orion, https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/56 Packaging Ada draft was in agenda yesterday: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/2011-February/007646.html -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675388] Review Request: xmlada - full XML stack for Ada
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=675388 Pavel Zhukov changed: What|Removed |Added External Bug ID||FedoraHosted 56 --- Comment #10 from Pavel Zhukov 2011-02-18 11:02:28 EST --- -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675388] Review Request: xmlada - full XML stack for Ada
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=675388 Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich changed: What|Removed |Added External Bug ID|FedoraHosted 56 | --- Comment #11 from Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich 2011-02-19 00:50:45 EST --- Jason, I will track the Ada draft. Pavel, you add https://fedorahosted.org/cobbler/ticket/56 but not https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/56. I don't know how to add correct ticket, but remove incorect one. One more, Pavel, I will not be in touch from 28.02 till 22.03. I could drop assigment at 28.02 if you wish. -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675388] Review Request: xmlada - full XML stack for Ada
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=675388 --- Comment #12 from Björn Persson 2011-02-19 11:11:01 EST --- The URL given as Source0 gives me a 404. If you can't find a direct download URL, then put only the filename in SourceX and give download instructions in a comment. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Troublesome_URLs -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675388] Review Request: xmlada - full XML stack for Ada
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=675388 --- Comment #13 from Pavel Zhukov 2011-02-19 16:53:44 EST --- Fix python deps Fix Source tag New build: http://landgraf.fedorapeople.org/packages/requested/xmlada/xmlada.spec http://landgraf.fedorapeople.org/packages/requested/xmlada/xmlada-3.2.1-6.fc14.src.rpm Koji *OK http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2851675 -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675388] Review Request: xmlada - full XML stack for Ada
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=675388 --- Comment #14 from Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich 2011-02-20 00:56:36 EST --- No changes. +1 to comment #12. -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675388] Review Request: xmlada - full XML stack for Ada
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=675388 --- Comment #15 from Pavel Zhukov 2011-02-20 04:32:01 EST --- I'm sorry. Correct links. http://landgraf.fedorapeople.org/packages/requested/xmlada/xmlada.spec http://landgraf.fedorapeople.org/packages/requested/xmlada/xmlada-3.2.1-7.fc14.src.rpm -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675388] Review Request: xmlada - full XML stack for Ada
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=675388
Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #16 from Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich 2011-02-27 23:36:13
EST ---
Ada guide is accepted. Continue.
Note: there is new spec update, not announced by Pavel, new srpm at
http://landgraf.fedorapeople.org/packages/requested/xmlada/xmlada-3.2.1-8.fc14.src.rpm
Review
+ rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces.
+ The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
+ The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
+ With new Ada guide too.
+ The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines. GPLv2+
+ The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
+ If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package must be included in %doc.
+ The spec file must be written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
+ The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
+ The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least
one primary architecture.
+ All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines.
* Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files
(not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun.
Package contain symlinks in %{_libdir}.
+ Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
+ A package must own all directories that it creates.
+ A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings.
+ Permissions on files must be set properly.
+ Each package must consistently use macros.
+ The package must contain code, or permissable content.
+ If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application.
+ Header files must be in a -devel package.
+ If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then
library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package.
+ In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package
using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} =
%{version}-%{release}
+ Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
+ Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
+ All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
==
Approved.
NB!
I will not be in touch for 3 weeks (untill 22 of March). If some questions
arised, someone is wellcomed to drop my assigment and rerunning of 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.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675388] Review Request: xmlada - full XML stack for Ada
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=675388
--- Comment #17 from Björn Persson 2011-02-28
19:59:03 EST ---
(In reply to comment #16)
I'm afraid Dmitrij was a little too eager to finish this review.
> + The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
> + With new Ada guide too.
It doesn't meet the recently approved Ada guidelines:
· "BuildRequires: gcc-gnat" is missing.
· The project files contain a hard-coded directory name:
"../../include/xmlada".
· "Requires: fedora-gnat-project-common >= 2" is missing from the -devel
package.
· The project files aren't placed in %{_GNAT_project_dir}.
> * Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files
> (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call
> ldconfig in %post and %postun.
> Package contain symlinks in %{_libdir}.
So it doesn't technically put the libraries in %{_libdir}, but don't they still
need to get into the linker's cache somehow? How will that happen if ldconfig
isn't run?
> + A package must own all directories that it creates.
It doesn't own the directory %{_libdir}/xmlada/relocatable.
> + In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package
> using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} =
> %{version}-%{release}
"%{?_isa}" is missing.
Some other things I have noticed:
· What is the empty directory %{_libdir}/xmlada/static needed for?
· The group of the -devel subpackage should be "Development/Libraries".
· The documentation should be in the -devel subpackage, except for COPYING.
--
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.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675388] Review Request: xmlada - full XML stack for Ada
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=675388
--- Comment #18 from Pavel Zhukov 2011-03-01 04:54:27 EST
---
(In reply to comment #17)
> (In reply to comment #16)>
> It doesn't meet the recently approved Ada guidelines:
> · "BuildRequires: gcc-gnat" is missing.
fixed
> · The project files contain a hard-coded directory name:
> "../../include/xmlada".
fixed
> · "Requires: fedora-gnat-project-common >= 2" is missing from the -devel
> package.
Why -devel should depend on fedora-gnat-project-common?
> · The project files aren't placed in %{_GNAT_project_dir}.
fixed
> It doesn't own the directory %{_libdir}/xmlada/relocatable.
fixed
> "%{?_isa}" is missing.
fixed
> Some other things I have noticed:
> · What is the empty directory %{_libdir}/xmlada/static needed for?
It's needed for some other packages (gprbuild and aws for example)
> · The group of the -devel subpackage should be "Development/Libraries".
fixed
> · The documentation should be in the -devel subpackage, except for COPYING.
Why? I cannot find guidelines about it. Why README (for example) should be in
-devel?
--
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.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675388] Review Request: xmlada - full XML stack for Ada
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=675388 --- Comment #19 from Pavel Zhukov 2011-03-01 05:51:07 EST --- SPEC: http://landgraf.fedorapeople.org/packages/requested/xmlada/xmlada.spec SRPMS: http://landgraf.fedorapeople.org/packages/requested/xmlada/xmlada-3.2.1-9.fc15.src.rpm koji http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2875648 -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675388] Review Request: xmlada - full XML stack for Ada
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=675388
--- Comment #20 from Björn Persson 2011-03-01
15:29:30 EST ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> (In reply to comment #17)
> > · "Requires: fedora-gnat-project-common >= 2" is missing from the -devel
> > package.
> Why -devel should depend on fedora-gnat-project-common?
Because the -devel package contains project files which depend on
directories.gpr, which is in fedora-gnat-project-common, and we don't currently
have a mechanism to auto-detect this dependency. It must be >= 2 because older
versions of fedora-gnat-project-common don't contain directories.gpr.
> > Some other things I have noticed:
> > · What is the empty directory %{_libdir}/xmlada/static needed for?
> It's needed for some other packages (gprbuild and aws for example)
It sounds odd, but I suppose it's OK. It doesn't break any guideline that I can
see.
> > · The group of the -devel subpackage should be "Development/Libraries".
> fixed
No, I still see "System Environment/Libraries".
> > · The documentation should be in the -devel subpackage, except for COPYING.
> Why? I cannot find guidelines about it. Why README (for example) should be in
> -devel?
Because the information in README is relevant only to developers who write
programs that use the library. Users who merely run programs linked to XMLada
won't be interested.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Documentation
"for example API documentation belongs in the -devel subpackage"
--
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.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675388] Review Request: xmlada - full XML stack for Ada
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=675388 --- Comment #21 from Pavel Zhukov 2011-03-01 15:50:50 EST --- > Because the -devel package contains project files which depend on > directories.gpr, which is in fedora-gnat-project-common, and we don't > currently > have a mechanism to auto-detect this dependency. It must be >= 2 because older > versions of fedora-gnat-project-common don't contain directories.gpr. I think the better way is to add fedora-gnat-common-project to gcc-gnat Requires than adding one to all -devel packages. I'll create ticket for this. > No, I still see "System Environment/Libraries". I'm sorry, fixed ... again > Because the information in README is relevant only to developers who write > programs that use the library. Users who merely run programs linked to XMLada > won't be interested. There are LICENSING, BUG REPORTS, USING THE LIBRARY sections in README not only development information -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675388] Review Request: xmlada - full XML stack for Ada
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=675388 --- Comment #22 from Pavel Zhukov 2011-03-03 10:50:43 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: xmlada Short Description: Full XML stack for Ada Owners: landgraf Branches: InitialCC: -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675388] Review Request: xmlada - full XML stack for Ada
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=675388 --- Comment #23 from Orion Poplawski 2011-03-03 11:05:41 EST --- You don't want *any* branches? I would think at least f15, if not f14 and f13 as well. -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675388] Review Request: xmlada - full XML stack for Ada
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=675388 --- Comment #24 from Pavel Zhukov 2011-03-03 12:37:18 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: xmlada Short Description: Full XML stack for Ada Owners: landgraf Branches: F-15 InitialCC: -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675388] Review Request: xmlada - full XML stack for Ada
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=675388 Pavel Zhukov 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675388] Review Request: xmlada - full XML stack for Ada
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=675388 --- Comment #25 from Jason Tibbitts 2011-03-04 08:12:33 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675388] Review Request: xmlada - full XML stack for Ada
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=675388 Pavel Zhukov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2011-03-04 09:27:47 --- Comment #26 from Pavel Zhukov 2011-03-04 09:27:47 EST --- Thank everyone for 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675388] Review Request: xmlada - full XML stack for Ada
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=675388 --- Comment #27 from Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich 2011-03-23 05:51:21 EDT --- Sorry for that. Will drop if hurry next time. -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675388] Review Request: xmlada - full XML stack for Ada
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=675388 Pavel Zhukov changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #28 from Pavel Zhukov 2011-11-07 07:37:37 EST --- Package Change Request == Package Name: xmlada New Branches: el6 Owners: landgraf -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 675388] Review Request: xmlada - full XML stack for Ada
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=675388 --- Comment #29 from Jon Ciesla 2011-11-07 08:17:51 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
