[Bug 995995] Review Request: lunar-date - Chinese lunar date library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=995995 Michael Schwendt changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard||AwaitingSubmitter -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 995995] Review Request: lunar-date - Chinese lunar date library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=995995 Mike Manilone changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- 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=eLLpnKuyxW&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 995995] Review Request: lunar-date - Chinese lunar date library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=995995 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cicku...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Christopher Meng --- 1.This is not the latest version. 2. Have you tested its usability? This package has been packaged by myself for a long time, but because its upstream is dead, I'm not sure if it's useful. -- 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=yW0fPgm3KG&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 995995] Review Request: lunar-date - Chinese lunar date library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=995995 --- Comment #2 from Mike Manilone --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #1) > 1.This is not the latest version. http://code.google.com/p/liblunar/ shows that this is the latest one. > > 2. Have you tested its usability? This package has been packaged by myself > for a long time, but because its upstream is dead, I'm not sure if it's > useful. https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/675/lunar-calendar/ depends on it. -- 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=h7gAkYByAa&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 995995] Review Request: lunar-date - Chinese lunar date library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=995995 --- Comment #3 from Christopher Meng --- I can find 3.0 version. -- 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=TS1g0qYa9w&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 995995] Review Request: lunar-date - Chinese lunar date library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=995995 --- Comment #4 from Mike Manilone --- Nope, that's lunar-calendar, a graphical library targetting Gtk+3, while lunar-date is a low-level library for date conversion. -- 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=hItBV4FQax&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 995995] Review Request: lunar-date - Chinese lunar date library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=995995
--- Comment #5 from Michael Schwendt ---
Have rpmlint and/or "fedora-review -b 995995" been run for this one yet?
> %files data
> %dir %{_datadir}/liblunar
> %{_datadir}/liblunar/*
%files data
%{_datadir}/liblunar/
would be shorter and achieves the same.
Btw, here the subpackage includes only three tiny files, each below 1KB, and
the base package even strictly depends on this package. Is that really enough
reason to introduce a noarch subpackage?
> %packagedocs
The guidelines recommend -doc not -docs:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Documentation
The subpackage is 14788 bytes long. I would keep it in the -devel package.
--
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=j2rFta1kZd&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 995995] Review Request: lunar-date - Chinese lunar date library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=995995 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed||2014-07-14 22:45:45 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449 [Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter response should be blocking this bug. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
