https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840740
Bug ID: 840740
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
Severity: medium
Version: rawhide
Priority: medium
CC: nott...@redhat.com,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840551
Vasiliy Glazov vasc...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vasc...@gmail.com
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821404
--- Comment #9 from Vasiliy Glazov vasc...@gmail.com ---
OK.
My first review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840551
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771252
--- Comment #91 from leigh scott leigh123li...@googlemail.com ---
(In reply to comment #90)
(In reply to comment #88)
My hostile comments were aimed at Ralf Corsepius, not you.
What was hostile about my comments to justify your hostile
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840422
Bug 840422 depends on bug 738744, which changed state.
Bug 738744 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-execjs - ExecJS lets you run
JavaScript code from Ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=738744
What|Removed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=738744
Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=738742
Bug 738742 depends on bug 738744, which changed state.
Bug 738744 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-execjs - ExecJS lets you run
JavaScript code from Ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=738744
What|Removed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831749
--- Comment #12 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com ---
(In reply to comment #11)
Should probably make summary and description match (use %{name} in both
places instead of once using ${gem_name}).
If you are referring to %doc description,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840425
Vasiliy Glazov vasc...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vasc...@gmail.com
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821404
--- Comment #10 from Vasiliy Glazov vasc...@gmail.com ---
And second review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840425
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840422
Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840422
Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807479
--- Comment #4 from Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com ---
I assume rpm fails on finding this dependency automatically, it's a common
problem on noarch packages. Otherwise you hadn't added it explicitely. Am I
right?
Yes.
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=749673
--- Comment #7 from Severin Gehwolf sgehw...@redhat.com ---
Sure, I can still do the review. Keep 'em comming :-)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829713
--- Comment #11 from Vasiliy Glazov vasc...@gmail.com ---
Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/RussianFedora/grive/master/grive.spec
SRPM URL:
http://koji.russianfedora.ru/packages/grive/0.2.0/2.fc18.R/src/grive-0.2.0-2.fc18.R.src.rpm
Full pass
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838771
Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=803558
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
ehcache-core-2.6.0-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ehcache-core-2.6.0-1.fc17
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=803558
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840425
--- Comment #2 from Danishka Navin danis...@gmail.com ---
Vasiliy,
attached new build fixed #1, #2 and #3
for #4 and #5 since i am not the upstream maintainer what should i do other
than contacting him?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833395
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833395
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
ginfo-0.2.1-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ginfo-0.2.1-2.fc16
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833395
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
ginfo-0.2.1-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ginfo-0.2.1-2.el6
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833395
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
ginfo-0.2.1-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ginfo-0.2.1-2.fc17
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833395
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
ginfo-0.2.1-2.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ginfo-0.2.1-2.el5
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=837313
--- Comment #11 from Andreas Schneider a...@redhat.com ---
--- gssproxy.spec.orig 2012-07-13 12:46:58.0 +0200
+++ gssproxy.spec 2012-07-16 21:33:02.740748184 +0200
@@ -36,7 +36,7 @@
%description
-A proxy for GSSAPI credential
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836850
--- Comment #4 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com ---
First of all I'd recommend you looking at the spec file of jetty. It is a
package with many submodules and structure similar to truezip.
Things that will need to be fixed:
1) JAR
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840551
Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840437
Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831228
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
pegdown-1.1.0-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pegdown-1.1.0-1.fc17
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831228
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840425
--- Comment #3 from Vasiliy Glazov vasc...@gmail.com ---
4. If this does not affect functionality you should make chmod +x for mun.py in
%prep section.
5. See here
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840437
--- Comment #1 from Danishka Navin danis...@gmail.com ---
updated the spec and tested for rpmlint against spec, srpm and rpm
http://snavin.fedorapeople.org/packages/sugar-xoeditor/sugar-xoeditor.spec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840374
Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840740
Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840425
Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840425
--- Comment #4 from Vasiliy Glazov vasc...@gmail.com ---
You forget correct #1.
--
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=840425
--- Comment #5 from Danishka Navin danis...@gmail.com ---
Thanks Vasiliy!
fixed both issues :)
attached spec and srpm, that fixed #4 and #5
http://snavin.fedorapeople.org/packages/sugar-colordeducto/sugar-colordeducto.spec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840425
--- Comment #6 from Danishka Navin danis...@gmail.com ---
i do not see any error or warning at all
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840425
--- Comment #7 from Danishka Navin danis...@gmail.com ---
[danishka@localhost rpmbuild]$ rpmlint -vi SPECS/sugar-colordeducto.spec
SPECS/sugar-colordeducto.spec: I: checking-url
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840425
--- Comment #8 from Vasiliy Glazov vasc...@gmail.com ---
Run fedora-review and you see tha you forget remove %defattr(-,root,root,-)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831929
--- Comment #6 from Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com ---
The only requirement is to inform upstream. Patching the source files does not
add any value, because it doesn't affect the built rpms. None of the patched
source files enters the built
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831929
--- Comment #7 from Vasiliy Glazov vasc...@gmail.com ---
OK. Should I remove patch now?
--
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=840425
--- Comment #9 from Danishka Navin danis...@gmail.com ---
fixed the %defattr issue
http://snavin.fedorapeople.org/packages/sugar-colordeducto/sugar-colordeducto-5-4.fc17.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823889
Patryk Obara pob...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) |
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830581
Rich Mattes richmat...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840714
Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840714
Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836404
Gerard Ryan ger...@ryan.lt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(ger...@ryan.lt)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836404
--- Comment #5 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com ---
Re-reviewing 2.0.2.GA from scratch.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832130
Jiri Popelka jpope...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On||840830
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836404
--- Comment #6 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com ---
2 issues found:
[!]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
org.apache.maven.surefire:surefire-junit4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832130
--- Comment #2 from Jiri Popelka jpope...@redhat.com ---
version 1.0.19 - lot of changes, mainly switching build system to autotools.
Spec URL: http://jpopelka.fedorapeople.org/cups-filters.spec
SRPM URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821404
--- Comment #11 from Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com ---
Vasiliy,
Review in comment #9 is a bit odd. You ask the package review reporter t o run
fedora review. It is the packager reviewer (ie your) job to run fedora
review.
The second review
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840425
--- Comment #10 from Vasiliy Glazov vasc...@gmail.com ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818943
Tomas Radej tra...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821404
--- Comment #12 from Vasiliy Glazov vasc...@gmail.com ---
I understand about fedora-review.
And I think review 840425 is done. The package meets all requirements except
using macro in Source0.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=738742
Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840878
Bug ID: 840878
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
Severity: unspecified
Version: 17
Priority: unspecified
CC: nott...@redhat.com,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832130
Bug 832130 depends on bug 840830, which changed state.
Bug 840830 Summary: Ship %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/ijs.pc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840830
What|Removed |Added
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=738742
--- Comment #3 from Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com ---
So here are the updated spec and srpm, I created them completely from scratch:
SPEC:
http://bkabrda.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/coffee-script/rubygem-coffee-script.spec
SRPM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831749
--- Comment #13 from Troy Dawson tdaw...@redhat.com ---
So, I think I have my specfile fixed up with all of your (both Jeff and Vit's)
recommendations. Those macro's do make it look much better.
But I am not able to figure out this one
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831749
--- Comment #14 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com ---
(In reply to comment #13)
But I am not able to figure out this one recommendation
${gem_dir} does not need a leading '/'
Where am I doing that?
You are using ./%{gem_dir} on several
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785471
Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785455
Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823889
gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838568
--- Comment #1 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com ---
Hi, I prepared updated packages with latest upstream version.
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/vondruch/rubygem-abrt.spec
SRPM URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771252
--- Comment #92 from Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com ---
Seriously 7 months later, and this has gone nowhere. Please remove yourself.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838344
--- Comment #5 from Rich Mattes richmat...@gmail.com ---
The git tag says version 3.0.0, but the CMakeLists.txt contains a version of
4.0.0. Since the libraries, headers, and pkgconfig are all versioned off of
the number in the CMake scripts, I
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836404
--- Comment #7 from Gerard Ryan ger...@ryan.lt ---
Spec URL:
http://galileo.fedorapeople.org/jboss-reflect/2.0.2-2/jboss-reflect.spec
SRPM URL:
http://galileo.fedorapeople.org/jboss-reflect/2.0.2-2/jboss-reflect-2.0.2-2.fc17.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836404
Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836404
--- Comment #9 from Gerard Ryan ger...@ryan.lt ---
New Package SCM Request
===
Package Name: jboss-reflect
Short Description: JBoss Reflection
Owners: galileo
Branches: f17
InitialCC:
--
You are receiving this mail because:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836404
Gerard Ryan ger...@ryan.lt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839742
Jitka Plesnikova jples...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821404
--- Comment #13 from Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com ---
Vasiliy,
I see in 840425 you did provide a full review in comment #10. Unfortunately
many of the [ ] are empty, which leaves the impression to the git admins that
the review is still
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=738742
Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=738742
Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823171
--- Comment #3 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com ---
This is looking good, just one rpmlint error of concern?
erlang-eleveldb.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
basho-eleveldb-1.1.0-0-g7790751.tar.gz
erlang-eleveldb.x86_64: E:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834070
--- Comment #12 from Darryl L. Pierce dpie...@redhat.com ---
Please, can we wrap up this package review? I understand that other tasks can
pull you away, but it seems that I've met all review expectations and would
like to get this package done.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809950
--- Comment #17 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com ---
Version 1.0-2 fails to build in mock:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4246613
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=813842
Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dan.mas...@gmail.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785442
--- Comment #8 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com ---
Created attachment 598669
-- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=598669action=edit
php-horde-Horde-Date-review.txt
Generated by fedora-review 0.2.0 (53cc903) last change:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785442
Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823101
Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829971
Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830664
Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831749
--- Comment #15 from Troy Dawson tdaw...@redhat.com ---
OK, I see that now.
Those sections I took straight out of the ruby packaging guidelines.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Ruby#Building_gems
Maybe we should update that section so it
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831749
--- Comment #16 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com ---
(In reply to comment #15)
Those sections I took straight out of the ruby packaging guidelines.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Ruby#Building_gems
Maybe we should update that
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840425
Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840437
--- Comment #2 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com ---
Review:
+ koji scratch build
-http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4246639
+ rpmlint on rpms gave
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
+ Source
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839742
--- Comment #4 from Bill Pemberton wf...@virginia.edu ---
Rose::Object::MakeMethods was originally filtered from requires because it
would create a circular depandancy. This was quite a few rpm versions ago
(I've used essentially these same
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=813842
--- Comment #5 from Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com ---
BuildRequires: gcc, make, libX11, mesa-libGL, mesa-libGLU
I have try to build without libX11, mesa-libGL, mesa-libGLU and rpm
do not found the dependencies
What does that mean?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823101
Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830664
--- Comment #4 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com ---
Peter, its come to my attention that there is a manual for this software - do
you see any issue with me including this in a docs subpackage?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840551
--- Comment #2 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com ---
Review:
+ koji scratch build
-http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4246775
- rpmlint on rpms gave
sugar-kuku.noarch: W: no-documentation
sugar-kuku.noarch: E:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819134
Jay Dobies jason.dob...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840374
Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830664
--- Comment #5 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Peter, its come to my attention that there is a manual for this software -
do you see any issue with me including this in a docs subpackage?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820548
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
jasperreports-4.0.2-3.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jasperreports-4.0.2-3.fc17
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823101
Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823171
Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--
You are
1 - 100 of 194 matches
Mail list logo
