[Bug 724878] Review Request: TexStudio - A feature-rich editor for LaTeX documents
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=724878 Martin Gieseking changed: What|Removed |Added CC||martin.giesek...@uos.de --- Comment #1 from Martin Gieseking 2011-07-22 12:06:32 EDT --- Hannes, here are some initial comments: - Please use the original spelling "TeXstudio" in the %description. - The tarball bundles a couple of libraries: * hunspell (present in Fedora) * qtsingleapplication (present in Fedora) * qcodeedit (not present in Fedora) As linking bundled libraries is not permitted in Fedora, you have to patch the sources so that the separately packaged libraries are used. If this is not possible due to some reason, you might want to ask FPC for a bundled library exception. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries - The license of TeXstudio is GPLv2+, the bundled qtsingleapplication is GPLv3. If you get a bundled library exception, the license of the binary would be GPLv3. -- 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 724878] Review Request: TexStudio - A feature-rich editor for LaTeX documents
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=724878 --- Comment #2 from hannes 2011-07-23 11:11:47 EDT --- Alright thanks for your feedback. I will start packaging Qcodeeditor and make note in this bug. Also I will ask upstream if and how the dependencies could be resolved with libraries already in fedora and without using bundled ones. -- 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 724878] Review Request: TexStudio - A feature-rich editor for LaTeX documents
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=724878 hannes changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||725228 -- 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 724878] Review Request: TexStudio - A feature-rich editor for LaTeX documents
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=724878 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rdie...@math.unl.edu Blocks||656997(kde-reviews) -- 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 724878] Review Request: TexStudio - A feature-rich editor for LaTeX documents
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=724878 --- Comment #3 from hannes 2011-07-26 05:30:02 EDT --- Hi, in parallel with getting qcodeedit reviewed I asked upstream if it is possible to unbundle the libraries. [1] In case of hunspell and qtsingleapplication there should no big problem but in case of qcodeedit there are some problems since they are using a heavily patched version and it is quite hard to include them upstream. I try to remove the libraries of hunspell and qtsingleapplication. With the library of qcodeedit don't really know how to proceed. I see two possible solutions: 1. Ask FPC for an exception for qcodeedit 2. patch qcodeedit with the changes made by the texstudio-devs (don't know if that's possible though) I'm quite sorry for the probably useless review of qcodeedit. [1] https://sourceforge.net/projects/texstudio/forums/forum/907839/topic/4622024 -- 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 724878] Review Request: TexStudio - A feature-rich editor for LaTeX documents
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=724878 --- Comment #4 from Martin Gieseking 2011-07-26 05:51:54 EDT --- Hi Johannes, (In reply to comment #3) > With the library of qcodeedit don't really know how to proceed. I see two > possible solutions: > > 1. Ask FPC for an exception for qcodeedit Yes, that's the way to go. You should explain in the FPC ticket what (incompatible) changes have been made to qcodeedit and why it's not possible to integrate them in the regular release. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries#Exceptions > 2. patch qcodeedit with the changes made by the texstudio-devs (don't know if > that's possible though) You should not modify the functionality and/or the API of the original library because this will cause problems to potential future packages that depend on the original sources. Alternatively, the developers of TeXstudio could think of a fork and release their modified qcodeedit separately. But as stated in the forum post, that obviously isn't an option. > I'm quite sorry for the probably useless review of qcodeedit. Not a problem at all. The package might nonetheless be useful to Fedora users/developers. -- 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 724878] Review Request: TexStudio - A feature-rich editor for LaTeX documents
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=724878 Bug 724878 depends on bug 725228, which changed state. Bug 725228 Summary: Review Request: qcodeedit - Qt-Framework for code editing https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725228 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||RAWHIDE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- 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 724878] Review Request: TexStudio - A feature-rich editor for LaTeX documents
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=724878 --- Comment #5 from hannes 2011-07-28 13:02:09 EDT --- Alright I asked for help on the -devel list and found someone who helped me out with the patches. SPEC-URL: http://hannes.fedorapeople.org/texstudio.spec SRPM-URL: http://hannes.fedorapeople.org/texstudio-2.2-2.fc15.src.rpm I will file a ticket for the exception as far as I find some time to provide the needed information. -- 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 724878] Review Request: TexStudio - A feature-rich editor for LaTeX documents
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=724878 --- Comment #6 from Martin Gieseking 2011-07-28 13:51:21 EDT --- OK, great. To ensure that the bundled libraries are not built and linked, please remove the folders containing the corresponding sources (in %prep). http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Treatment_Of_Bundled_Libraries#Packages_with_Bundled_Libraries Some additional minor notes: - Add a short comment above the License field documenting the multiple licensing scenario: texstudio binary: GPLv3 due to static linkage of bundled qcodeedit texstudio data and image files: GPLv2+ - Instead of requiring texlive-latex, I recommend to use the virtual provides tex(latex). - Drop the following sentence from the %description: "You can run it on Windows, Unix/Linux, BSD and MacOSX systems and modify it if you want, since it is licensed under the GPL." - Prefer removing the dictionary files in %install over excluding them in %files. -- 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 724878] Review Request: TexStudio - A feature-rich editor for LaTeX documents
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=724878 --- Comment #7 from hannes 2011-07-29 03:09:50 EDT --- Alright filed [1] SPEC-URL: http://hannes.fedorapeople.org/texstudio.spec SRPM-URL: http://hannes.fedorapeople.org/texstudio-2.2-3.fc15.src.rpm Fixed all your notes. Thanks a lot for your helpful comments! [1] https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/100 -- 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 724878] Review Request: TexStudio - A feature-rich editor for LaTeX documents
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=724878 --- Comment #8 from hannes 2011-08-10 14:28:38 EDT --- Alright exception was granted today as you can see in the following ticket: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/100 I just added the additional Provides. I don't know if there is something further to take care of. SPEC-URL: http://hannes.fedorapeople.org/texstudio.spec SRPM-URL: http://hannes.fedorapeople.org/texstudio-2.2-4.fc15.src.rpm Johannes -- 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 724878] Review Request: TexStudio - A feature-rich editor for LaTeX documents
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=724878
Martin Gieseking changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|martin.giesek...@uos.de
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #9 from Martin Gieseking 2011-08-11
08:54:00 EDT ---
Here's the formal review of the package. I'm sorry, there are still a few
things to fix.
- Add a slash between $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir} and %{name} in the rm
statements. Currently, the files supposed to be removed are still packaged.
- The package provides qm locale files that must be installed with
%find_lang %{name} --with-qt and %files -f %{name}.lang. However, as they
are located in %{_datadir}/texstudio/ instead of a separate subfolder, it's
a bit complicated to separate them from the other files in that directory.
The qm files must not be added by one of the entries in the %files section.
Also, texstudio seems to bundle Qt locales (qt_FOO.mq). Please ask upstream
if they are modified or if they can be removed so that the original locale
files that come with Qt are used.
- Please use the original spelling "TeXstudio" in the %description
- Ask upstream to add the GPLv3 license text to the qcodeedit folder.
He should also fix the FSF address in COPYING.
$ rpmlint *.rpm
texstudio.src:26: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(qcodeedit)
texstudio.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/texstudio-2.2/COPYING
texstudio.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/texstudio/COPYING
texstudio.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary texstudio
texstudio-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/src/debug/texstudio2.2/.ui
texstudio-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/src/debug/texstudio2.2/.ui
texstudio-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/src/debug/texstudio2.2/.moc
texstudio-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/src/debug/texstudio2.2/.moc
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 6 warnings.
-
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license.
- GPLv2+ and GPLv3 (bundled and statically linked qcodeedit library)
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+] MUST: The file containing the text of the license(s) for the package must
be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source.
$ md5sum texstudio-2.2.tar.gz*
d23cf71c90f3fd950d49bf480285e920 texstudio-2.2.tar.gz
d23cf71c90f3fd950d49bf480285e920 texstudio-2.2.tar.gz.1
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, ...
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[+] MUST: When compiling C, C++, or Fortran files, %{optflags} must be applied.
[X] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
[+] MUST: If a package installs files below %{_datadir}/icons, the icon cache
must be updated.
[.] MUST: Packages storing shared library files (not just symlinks) must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
- exception for qcodeedit has been granted
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ...
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[X] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files.
- COPYING and AUTHORS packaged twice due to missing slash in
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}%{name}/...
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application.
[.] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[.] MUST: 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.
[.] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency.
[+]
[Bug 724878] Review Request: TexStudio - A feature-rich editor for LaTeX documents
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=724878
--- Comment #10 from hannes 2011-08-12 13:58:22
EDT ---
Ok thanks for the review! I asked upstream about the licensing [1] and the qt
files [2]. So far I only received a reply for the qt_lang files and they are
unmodified, so I removed them.
The missing GPLv3 file is not a blocker or? Do I need to add one?
Also I added the missing file_install macro but I am not sure if it's possible
to use %exclude %{_datadir}/texstudio/texstudio_*.qm to exclude them in the
file section.
[1]
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=3390072&group_id=250595&atid=1126426
[2] http://sourceforge.net/projects/texstudio/forums/forum/907839/topic/4651681
--
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 724878] Review Request: TexStudio - A feature-rich editor for LaTeX documents
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=724878
--- Comment #11 from Martin Gieseking 2011-08-12
14:26:56 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> Ok thanks for the review! I asked upstream about the licensing [1] and the qt
> files [2]. So far I only received a reply for the qt_lang files and they are
> unmodified, so I removed them.
OK, sounds good. Please try to build the package and verify whether the Qt
locales, e.g. the German ones, are actually used, or if you get untranslated
English text snippets somewhere when running the application.
> The missing GPLv3 file is not a blocker or? Do I need to add one?
Nope. It's an upstream thing that should be considered in a future release.
There's no further action required on your side.
> Also I added the missing file_install macro but I am not sure if it's possible
> to use %exclude %{_datadir}/texstudio/texstudio_*.qm to exclude them in the
> file section.
Unfortunately, that's not possible. %exclude will also exclude the locale files
added by %files -f %{name}.lang. You have to give a list of path expressions
that select everything in %{_datadir}/texstudio/ except the .mq files.
--
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 724878] Review Request: texstudio - A feature-rich editor for LaTeX documents
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=724878 Jussi Lehtola changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jussi.leht...@iki.fi Summary|Review Request: TexStudio - |Review Request: texstudio - |A feature-rich editor for |A feature-rich editor for |LaTeX documents |LaTeX documents -- 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 724878] Review Request: texstudio - A feature-rich editor for LaTeX documents
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=724878 --- Comment #12 from hannes 2011-08-13 02:00:40 EDT --- Alright I tried to fix everything, please have a look if everything is as expected. SPEC-URL: http://hannes.fedorapeople.org/texstudio.spec SRPM-URL: http://hannes.fedorapeople.org/texstudio-2.2-5.fc15.src.rpm -- 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 724878] Review Request: texstudio - A feature-rich editor for LaTeX documents
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=724878 --- Comment #13 from hannes 2011-08-13 07:28:52 EDT --- Just found some errors in the .desktop file regarding the path to the icons? Should I ship one which solves this error or should I use desktop-file-install to change the icon path? -- 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 724878] Review Request: texstudio - A feature-rich editor for LaTeX documents
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=724878 --- Comment #14 from hannes 2011-08-13 07:41:09 EDT --- Ok fixed it by adding a modified one as additional Source. Mainly it was looking for icons in the wrong directory. Hope everything is fine now: SPEC-URL: http://hannes.fedorapeople.org/texstudio.spec SRPM-URL: http://hannes.fedorapeople.org/texstudio-2.2-6.fc15.src.rpm -- 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 724878] Review Request: texstudio - A feature-rich editor for LaTeX documents
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=724878
--- Comment #15 from Martin Gieseking 2011-08-13
08:48:31 EDT ---
OK, the package looks almost fine, but I think we need another iteration...
However, it should be the last one.
- Please remove "and %files -f %{name}.lang" from %find_lang. Sorry if my
previous comment was misleading. The mentioned addition was supposed to show
how the %files statement should look.
- I get two messages from desktop-file-validate:
$ desktop-file-validate texstudio.desktop
texstudio.desktop: warning: key "Encoding" in group "Desktop Entry" is
deprecated
texstudio.desktop: error: (will be fatal in the future): value "texstudio.png"
for key "Icon" in group "Desktop Entry" is an icon name with an extension, but
there should be no extension as described in the Icon Theme Specification if
the value is not an absolute path
=> drop the Encoding entry and the .png suffix from the .desktop file. The
proper file extension is detected automatically.
- Add %dir %{_datadir}/texstudio/ to %files for proper directory ownership.
Some minor improvements:
- Replace "Copying" with "COPYING" in the rm statement, and drop the %exclude
from %files.
- Also, add CHANGELOG.txt to the rm statement in %install, remove
%{_datadir}/texstudio/CHANGELOG.txt in %files, and add it with %doc.
--
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 724878] Review Request: texstudio - A feature-rich editor for LaTeX documents
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=724878 --- Comment #16 from hannes 2011-08-13 09:36:10 EDT --- Ok, think I now also removed the errors I introduced when fixing others during the review ;-) SPEC-URL: http://hannes.fedorapeople.org/texstudio.spec SRPM-URL: http://hannes.fedorapeople.org/texstudio-2.2-7.fc15.src.rpm Thanks for the feedback and 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 724878] Review Request: texstudio - A feature-rich editor for LaTeX documents
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=724878
Martin Gieseking changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #17 from Martin Gieseking 2011-08-13
11:25:59 EDT ---
OK, I think we're done now. As this is a rename request, I have to explicitly
check the presence of a proper Obsoletes/Provides pair, too. So here we go:
- Provides: texmakerx = %{version}-%{release} is present and correct.
- The Obsoletes field is also present and correct, but according to the
guidelines, it should look like this:
Obsoletes: texmakerx < 2.2-1
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Renaming.2FReplacing_Existing_Packages
Please update the Obsoletes field before you check in the package.
Package APPROVED
--
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 724878] Review Request: texstudio - A feature-rich editor for LaTeX documents
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=724878 hannes changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #18 from hannes 2011-08-13 11:35:47 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: texstudio Short Description: A feature-rich editor for LaTeX documents Owners: hannes Branches: f17 f16 f15 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 724878] Review Request: texstudio - A feature-rich editor for LaTeX documents
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=724878 --- Comment #19 from Jon Ciesla 2011-08-13 12:14:05 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). Removed redundant f17 branch, f17==devel for approx 6 more months. -- 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 724878] Review Request: texstudio - A feature-rich editor for LaTeX documents
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=724878 hannes changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2011-08-13 12:57:47 --- Comment #20 from hannes 2011-08-13 12:57:47 EDT --- Build in rawhide. Thanks for the review! http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3270835 -- 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
