https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834481
Scott Tsai scottt...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836362
--- Comment #6 from Darryl L. Pierce dpie...@redhat.com ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Looks like I am a packager now, so I'll make this an official review. Please
make the fixes listed in my review above and that should be good enough.
Thank
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832953
Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||m...@zarb.org
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831929
Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||m...@zarb.org
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838327
Bug ID: 838327
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
Severity: medium
Version: rawhide
Priority: unspecified
CC: nott...@redhat.com,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829116
Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||m...@zarb.org
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829116
Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@zarb.org
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825865
Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||m...@zarb.org
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834481
Yannick Brosseau yannick.bross...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834481
--- Comment #5 from Yannick Brosseau yannick.bross...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to comment #3)
[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
APPROVED.
Thanks Scott
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838344
Bug ID: 838344
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
Severity: medium
Version: rawhide
Priority: medium
CC: nott...@redhat.com,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819264
--- Comment #8 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu ---
So, while looking into this closer, we probably ought to address the issue of
bundling factory/libfac. In short, why not use the system copies instead of
the bundled code here? To justify
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819264
--- Comment #9 from pcpa paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com ---
Agreed. This was a side effect of, besides fully rewriting the Singular.spec,
still using some semantics I had in my Mandriva packages, where libfac is
statically linked to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819264
--- Comment #10 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu ---
I suppose if using system libfac/factory doesn't work, for whatever reason,
perhaps this Singular package could provide them (and we retire the separate
libfac/factory packages currently in
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819264
--- Comment #11 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu ---
Singular-3.1.3-5.fc18 scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4225504
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834551
Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819264
--- Comment #12 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu ---
Simple stuff:
$ rpmlint *.rpm
Singular.src: W: invalid-license LGPLv2.1+
ah...
1. LGPLv2.1+ isn't a valid license tag in fedora, use:
License: BSD and LGPLv2+ and GPLv2+
instead
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819264
--- Comment #13 from pcpa paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com ---
It is going to require significant rework I guess, as well as in libfac.
Maybe the proper approach should be to have the Singular package generate
libfac and libfac-devel,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819264
--- Comment #14 from pcpa paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com ---
Only Macaulay2 needs libfac and factory?
I am inclined to think that this package should provide the current
libfac-devel and factory as subpackages.
--
You are receiving
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819264
--- Comment #15 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu ---
Yes. I agree with that plan.
Given the differences, that will likely require some additional work to adapt
Macaulay2 to use the newer and different stuff. So be it.
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781823
Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781823
--- Comment #2 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Please add desktop-file-install to BuildRequires
I meant desktop-file-utils, of course.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=837705
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834551
--- Comment #5 from Ismael Olea ism...@olea.org ---
Here they are:
Spec URL: http://olea.org/tmp/pdfmod/poppler-sharp.spec
SRPM URL: http://olea.org/tmp/pdfmod/poppler-sharp-0.0.3-2.fc17.src.rpm
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810010
Thomas Spura toms...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810336
Thomas Spura toms...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=808350
Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||g...@bluewin.ch
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819264
--- Comment #16 from pcpa paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com ---
The only thing I was a bit unsure is about installing factory headers directory
in %_includedir, but will keep it to have the package as compatible as
possible.
That is,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834551
Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836362
Matt Spaulding mspauldin...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=796953
Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #8
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834551
--- Comment #7 from Ismael Olea ism...@olea.org ---
thanks!
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834551
Ismael Olea ism...@olea.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #8
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819264
--- Comment #17 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu ---
doesn't matter much to me really, Macaulay2 packaging can be adapted either
way.
But, for review purposes, I won't consider the bundling or replacement of
system libfac/factory a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836362
Darryl L. Pierce dpie...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819264
--- Comment #18 from pcpa paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com ---
Ok. I am almost done with a new review request, and generating compatible
factory-devel and libfac-devel.
Already know sagemath builds, and have a patch for Macaulay2 already,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=808350
Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ti...@math.uh.edu
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771252
Eric Smith e...@brouhaha.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(e...@brouhaha.com |
|)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771252
--- Comment #77 from Eric Smith e...@brouhaha.com ---
Created attachment 596911
-- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=596911action=edit
mock root.log resulting from fedora-packager
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771252
--- Comment #78 from Eric Smith e...@brouhaha.com ---
Running fedora-review against this review request bug fails to build cinnamon
with mock, which is surprising since it apparently builds with koji. The mock
build (for rawhide) reports in the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819670
Eric Smith e...@brouhaha.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819670
--- Comment #14 from Eric Smith e...@brouhaha.com ---
Thanks Michael! I'll look into why it wanted the native C++ compiler. I'm
also working on updating this to llvm 3.1, which does have to build a native
executable for llvm-config, which was
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819670
--- Comment #15 from Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl ---
Are you sure about the el6 branch? The new MinGW packaging guidelines (and thus
your current .spec file) currently only work on Fedora 17 and higher. If you
really want to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819670
--- Comment #16 from Eric Smith e...@brouhaha.com ---
New Package SCM Request
===
Package Name: mingw-llvm
Short Description: MinGW LLVM libraries for cross-development use
Owners: brouhaha
Branches: f17
InitialCC:
--
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819134
--- Comment #16 from Jay Dobies jason.dob...@redhat.com ---
Changes:
- Removed the %defattr line under %files
- Added a %check section to run unit tests
- Removed the python requires line; I checked and RHEL5 automatically adds an
abi requirement
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=724864
Volker Braun vbr...@physics.upenn.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819264
--- Comment #19 from pcpa paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com ---
Shortly I will post a Macaulay2 patch. The new Singular package that provides
newer factory-devel and libfac-devel, and tested to work with sagemath, and
fails very late in
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819480
--- Comment #24 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com ---
Ok. I have taken the various spec files and merged in all the changes.
Here's the notes on the changes I made:
- Updated to RC4.
- Cleaned up requres. mysql shouldn't be required. httpd was
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819264
--- Comment #20 from pcpa paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com ---
Created attachment 596916
-- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=596916action=edit
Macaulay2-factory.patch
With this patch, plus trivial Macaulay2.spec diff:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812659
--- Comment #11 from David Levine par.packa...@gmail.com ---
Spec URL: http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~levine/par/par-1.52-6.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~levine/par/par-1.52-6.fc17.src.rpm
Great news from the par2cmdline packager:
The
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819687
--- Comment #11 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu ---
OK, %clean is gone. But BuildRoot: is still there. At this point I have to
assume there is some reason you want to keep it there, but I'm not sure what it
would be. All current Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838362
Bug ID: 838362
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
Severity: medium
Version: rawhide
Priority: unspecified
CC: nott...@redhat.com,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838362
robyd...@fedoraonline.it changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||robyd...@fedoraonline.it
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=750394
--- Comment #28 from Kapil Arya ka...@ccs.neu.edu ---
Hi All,
I have updated the package to upstream release 1.2.5. Here are the links to the
latest SPEC and SRPM:
Spec URL: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/kapil/fedora_rpms/dmtcp.spec
SRPM URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771252
--- Comment #79 from leigh scott leigh123li...@googlemail.com ---
(In reply to comment #78)
Running fedora-review against this review request bug fails to build
cinnamon with mock, which is surprising since it apparently builds with
koji. The
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831123
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825825
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833359
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830221
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819134
--- Comment #17 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu ---
Hmm, this doesn't build for me:
+ nosetests
E
==
ERROR: Failure: ImportError (No module named okaara.prompt)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=808350
Garrett Mitchener garrett.mitche...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838362
robyd...@fedoraonline.it changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|rawhide |17
--
You are receiving this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=768894
--- Comment #11 from Davide Benini dben...@redhat.com ---
Sorry for the long delay,
I've made the following changes to the spec file and re-packaged the
application:
- removed macro forms of system executables, i.e. %{__mkdir_p} macros
- changed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=808350
--- Comment #7 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu ---
Uh, the SRPM is linked in the original message, where it says SRPM URL. At
least that's the one that failed to build for me.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=768894
Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Whiteboard|AwaitingSubmitter |
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838327
Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ke...@scrye.com
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831491
Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832353
Robin Lee robinlee.s...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833511
seth vidal svi...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||svi...@redhat.com
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810010
David Brown david.br...@pnnl.gov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787713
--- Comment #32 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com ---
Created attachment 596979
-- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=596979action=edit
Updated patch
Original patch contains a .pc file with a Requires: qhull which breaks;
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787713
--- Comment #33 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com ---
Created attachment 596980
-- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=596980action=edit
Patch free-solid-config to use pkg-config
Convert freesolid-config to use pkg-config
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787713
--- Comment #34 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com ---
Created attachment 596981
-- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=596981action=edit
Spec file patch
Proposed patch to handle comment #31, including the new patch in comment
://odysseus.fedorapeople.org/packages/Zukiwi/zukiwi-20120708-1.fc17.src.rpm
Description: The Zukiwi themes for GTK+2, GTK+3, Metacity and GNOME Shell,
created by lassekongo83.
Fedora Account System Username: odysseus
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838423
--- Comment #1 from Mattia Meneguzzo mattia.meneguzzo+fed...@gmail.com ---
I've used the .spec file of this package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827664 as a template for this.
Here you'll find RPM packages for Fedora 17:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=824052
--- Comment #5 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com ---
Can you please provide update here so that once package review completes and
built in fedora, will be available for testing?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=824061
--- Comment #9 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com ---
Can you please provide update here so that once package review completes and
built in fedora, will be available for testing?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=824057
--- Comment #7 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com ---
Can you please build the package in fedora so that it will be available for
testing?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821247
--- Comment #9 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com ---
Can you please build the package in fedora so that it will be available for
testing?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
79 matches
Mail list logo