[Bug 951711] Review Request: impressjs - Javascript presentation framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=951711 Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2013-05-28 09:17:05 --- Comment #21 from Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com --- All stable. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=IzhWJpG3hVa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 951711] Review Request: impressjs - Javascript presentation framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=951711 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- impressjs-0.5.3-1.20130412gitgedff5a0.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=zZfe2jJFdWa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 951711] Review Request: impressjs - Javascript presentation framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=951711 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- impressjs-0.5.3-1.20130412gitgedff5a0.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=L4qiSMhF8Wa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 951711] Review Request: impressjs - Javascript presentation framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=951711 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- impressjs-0.5.3-1.20130412gitgedff5a0.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=cGCRB2Qfgba=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 951711] Review Request: impressjs - Javascript presentation framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=951711 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- impressjs-0.5.3-1.20130412gitgedff5a0.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ADqh1imgYha=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 951711] Review Request: impressjs - Javascript presentation framework
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=951711 --- Comment #7 from Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com --- Thanks Tom. Upstream just responded to the ticket indicating this is MIT or GPLv2+. Spec file updated: Spec URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/impressjs.spec SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/impressjs-0.5.3-20130412gitgedff5a0.fc18.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=RNxlBkl8W7a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 951711] Review Request: impressjs - Javascript presentation framework
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=951711
Ricky Elrod rel...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from Ricky Elrod rel...@redhat.com ---
One remaining thing:
I was wrong in my comment above - rather than nuking the '1', it just needed a
period added after it. Sorry about that.
impressjs-0.5.3-20130412gitgedff5a0.fc20.noarch.rpm
becomes
impressjs-0.5.3-1.20130412gitgedff5a0.fc20.noarch.rpm
If you fix that, this is APPROVED.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[-]: 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 is included in %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[-]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 61440 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]:
[Bug 951711] Review Request: impressjs - Javascript presentation framework
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=951711
--- Comment #9 from Ricky Elrod rel...@redhat.com ---
One more thing - it might be more clean to do:
install -D -m 0644 js/impress.js %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/impressjs/impress.js
rather than
%{__mkdir_p} %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/impressjs
cp js/impress.js %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/impressjs/impress.js
but this is nonblocking, and still APPROVED. :)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=K8b3gIPjYTa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 951711] Review Request: impressjs - Javascript presentation framework
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=951711 --- Comment #10 from Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com --- Updated with your comments! Spec URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/impressjs.spec SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/impressjs-0.5.3-1.20130412gitgedff5a0.fc18.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=AeSiAETN6Wa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 951711] Review Request: impressjs - Javascript presentation framework
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=951711 Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #11 from Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: impressjs Short Description: Javascript presentation framework Owners: ralph Branches: f19 f18 f17 el6 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=hBrcrguXDRa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 951711] Review Request: impressjs - Javascript presentation framework
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=951711 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? | Flags||fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=LlJuoIPsXMa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 951711] Review Request: impressjs - Javascript presentation framework
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=951711 --- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=CwOxKUWLqha=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 951711] Review Request: impressjs - Javascript presentation framework
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=951711 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=biwwyHaUmaa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 951711] Review Request: impressjs - Javascript presentation framework
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=951711 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- impressjs-0.5.3-1.20130412gitgedff5a0.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/impressjs-0.5.3-1.20130412gitgedff5a0.fc19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=YtYpFsH4lQa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 951711] Review Request: impressjs - Javascript presentation framework
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=951711 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- impressjs-0.5.3-1.20130412gitgedff5a0.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/impressjs-0.5.3-1.20130412gitgedff5a0.fc18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=97vACm44vta=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 951711] Review Request: impressjs - Javascript presentation framework
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=951711 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- impressjs-0.5.3-1.20130412gitgedff5a0.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/impressjs-0.5.3-1.20130412gitgedff5a0.fc17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Nm8XHHa6Wqa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 951711] Review Request: impressjs - Javascript presentation framework
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=951711 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- impressjs-0.5.3-1.20130412gitgedff5a0.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/impressjs-0.5.3-1.20130412gitgedff5a0.el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=zwzQVisXeJa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 951711] Review Request: impressjs - Javascript presentation framework
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=951711 Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tcall...@redhat.com Depends On|182235 (FE-Legal) | --- Comment #6 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com --- If they do not specify a version, it is safe to treat it as GPL+. Mark it that way and move on. Lifting FE-Legal. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=TexfbD0Hm6a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 951711] Review Request: impressjs - Javascript presentation framework
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=951711 Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||182235 (FE-Legal) --- Comment #5 from Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com --- I marked this ticket as blocking FE-Legal. Upstream hasn't responded to our license question at https://github.com/bartaz/impress.js/issues/279 Upstream states in their README that the project is dual licensed MIT and GPL but they do not specify a version for the GPL. Is there anyway we can move forward with this package review without continuing to block on upstream's response? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=y47ip8mEzna=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 951711] Review Request: impressjs - Javascript presentation framework
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=951711 --- Comment #3 from Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com --- (In reply to comment #2) - License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. (pending upstream bug https://github.com/bartaz/impress.js/issues/279) Yeah.. still waiting. - Package requires other packages for directories it uses. (see item below - you'll need a Requires on httpd for this) - Requires correct, justified where necessary. (What the MochiKit package does is provide an httpd config file that has Alias /MochiKit /usr/share/MochiKit in it. If you do something like this, your patch can use /impressjs instead of hardcoding the file:/// url.) I see. What if a user wanted to install the impressjs resource but didn't want to have the demo served from their machine with httpd? That is the particular use case I packaged this for. Specifically for the python 'hovercraft' tool which bundles impress.js. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=952355 - Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. (As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging: Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment throw in a quick comment about why the patch exists.) Cool, can do. - The Release tag seems wrong. At least nuke the 1 before it. Cool. Will nuke. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=KbRtgVii09a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 951711] Review Request: impressjs - Javascript presentation framework
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=951711 --- Comment #4 from Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com --- New release with: - Added comment for the patch. - Nuked the '1' before the release tag. Also, I rewrote the old changelog to have the correct release tag. Spec URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/impressjs.spec SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/impressjs-0.5.3-20130412gitgedff5a0.fc18.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=6C8VoJOXxGa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 951711] Review Request: impressjs - Javascript presentation framework
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=951711 Ricky Elrod rel...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||rel...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rel...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=z81v4tNWgja=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 951711] Review Request: impressjs - Javascript presentation framework
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=951711
--- Comment #2 from Ricky Elrod rel...@redhat.com ---
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
(pending upstream bug https://github.com/bartaz/impress.js/issues/279)
- Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
(see item below - you'll need a Requires on httpd for this).
- Requires correct, justified where necessary.
(What the MochiKit package does is provide an httpd config file that has
Alias /MochiKit /usr/share/MochiKit
in it. If you do something like this, your patch can use /impressjs instead
of hardcoding the file:/// url.)
- Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
(As per
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment
throw in a quick comment about why the patch exists.)
- The Release tag seems wrong. At least nuke the 1 before it.
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[-]: 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 is included in %doc.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot
[Bug 951711] Review Request: impressjs - Javascript presentation framework
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=951711 Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||952355 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ahDI77m66da=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 951711] Review Request: impressjs - Javascript presentation framework
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=951711 --- Comment #1 from Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com --- This package built on koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5246952 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=RURVj4HCXRa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
