https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=757290
Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs?
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=757290
--- Comment #15 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com ---
oops typo!
Package Change Request
==
Package Name: unicode-ucd
New Branches: el5
Owners: petersen
InitialCC: i18n-team
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844674
Kashyap Chamarthy kcham...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=800867
--- Comment #8 from Jason Corley jason.cor...@gmail.com ---
and I see they accepted the issue, which is good, but not for 1.9.x, which
seems like a bummer. but at least future revisions won't need the modification.
I managed to rebuild the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=837726
Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844737
--- Comment #5 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com ---
Rawhide build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4347532
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844737
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844737
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
SLOF-0-0.1.git20120217.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/SLOF-0-0.1.git20120217.fc17
--- Comment #7 from Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844737
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
SLOF-0-0.1.git20120217.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/SLOF-0-0.1.git20120217.fc17
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844748
Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On||182235 (FE-Legal)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=837726
--- Comment #4 from Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Rpmlint output:
rpmlint SPECS/eclipse-jbosstools.spec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844963
Bug ID: 844963
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
Severity: medium
Version: rawhide
Priority: medium
CC: nott...@redhat.com,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=757290
--- Comment #16 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.
___
package-review mailing list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=788067
--- Comment #15 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.
___
package-review mailing list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841001
--- Comment #25 from Wolfgang Ulbrich chat-to...@raveit.de ---
Hi Dan.
@ using extra configure flags --enable-startup-notification
I talk with Stefano-k (mate dev) today.
They use this flags already for their debian package.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845012
Bug ID: 845012
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
Severity: medium
Version: rawhide
Priority: medium
CC: nott...@redhat.com,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809950
gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On||845012
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845012
gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||809950
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809950
--- Comment #19 from Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com ---
Instead of adding new deps I would focus on getting this package reviewed.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845021
Bug ID: 845021
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
Severity: medium
Version: rawhide
Priority: medium
CC: nott...@redhat.com,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844674
--- Comment #2 from Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com ---
Kashyap,
Since you have provided a review, click the take button and take over review.
Regards
-steve
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845021
--- Comment #1 from Troy Dawson tdaw...@redhat.com ---
*** Bug 842890 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842890
Troy Dawson tdaw...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844674
Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
--
You are receiving
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844674
Kashyap Chamarthy kcham...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|sd...@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845031
Bug ID: 845031
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
Severity: medium
Version: rawhide
Priority: medium
CC: nott...@redhat.com,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844748
--- Comment #8 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com ---
The latest seems to be that we can use the most strict license,
which appears to be GPLv2. See:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/2012-August/001942.html
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845031
--- Comment #1 from Zeeshan Ali z...@redhat.com ---
Sorry, wrong SRPM URL. Here is the correct one:
http://zeenix.fedorapeople.org/gnome-boxes-nonfree-0.0.2-1.fc17.src.rpm
You'll note that I've put 'LGPLv2+' as the Licence but thats not true.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828501
Wesley Hearn whe...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||whe...@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844748
--- Comment #9 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org ---
Now, the question is for the bundle of library. There will surely be a
exception, but I prefer to have it done the right way ( even if I do not know
how, open a ticket on fesco trac ? )
--
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844748
Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On|182235 (FE-Legal) |
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844748
--- Comment #10 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com ---
Which library do we think is bundled? It looks like the
'libc' directory contains a few functions copied out of the
kernel (ie. nothing to do with glibc). 'libgcc' contains
some
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845057
Bug ID: 845057
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
Severity: medium
Version: rawhide
Priority: medium
CC: nott...@redhat.com,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845057
Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||844965
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=837726
--- Comment #5 from Gerard Ryan ger...@ryan.lt ---
Thanks for the review
== Issues ==
1. I've scanned the code and couldn't find any files under Mozilla's license. I
suspect the License tag should look as follows: EPL and LGPLv2+ and ASL 2.0.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841001
--- Comment #26 from Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com ---
@Wolfgang,
Thanks for your helpful comments.
Please review the build.log. This is already done without needing these flags.
@Leigh,
I will look in to the .la files.
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844748
--- Comment #11 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org ---
I just asked to the FPC during today meeting ( just before going home ) and a
exception was granted :
18:50:18| spot #action Exception granted due to the OpenBIOS usage scenario
(BIOS can't
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841001
--- Comment #27 from Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com ---
libmatewnck 1.4.0
=
prefix: /usr
exec_prefix: /usr
libdir:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844013
--- Comment #2 from Troy Dawson tdaw...@redhat.com ---
Spec URL:
http://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/openshift-origin/openshift-origin-broker.spec
SRPM URL:
http://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/openshift-origin/openshift-origin-broker-0.6.7-3.fc18.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841001
--- Comment #28 from Wolfgang Ulbrich chat-to...@raveit.de ---
(In reply to comment #26)
@Wolfgang,
Thanks for your helpful comments.
Please review the build.log. This is already done without needing these
flags.
You right in case of
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844165
--- Comment #27 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to comment #3)
- %{_bindir}/marco-theme-viewer
why is it placed in -devel, as this sound like a useful tool for every day
usage ?
The reason is that the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844154
Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841001
--- Comment #29 from leigh scott leigh123li...@googlemail.com ---
(In reply to comment #26)
@Leigh,
I will look in to the .la files.
There's nothing to look at, if these files are in you package it will be an
instant review failure.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844154
--- Comment #1 from Wolfgang Ulbrich chat-to...@raveit.de ---
first scratch build for a starting point
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4347023
SPEC: http://raveit65.fedorapeople.org/Mate-Desktop/fc18/SPECS/mate-conf.spec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844154
Wolfgang Ulbrich chat-to...@raveit.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831092
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821732
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831092
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
ghc-readline-1.0.1.0-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844154
--- Comment #3 from Wolfgang Ulbrich chat-to...@raveit.de ---
Oops, wrong spec file
first scratch build for a starting point
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4347023
SPEC:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838675
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844154
--- Comment #4 from Wolfgang Ulbrich chat-to...@raveit.de ---
again with correct urls :(
SPEC:
http://raveit65.fedorapeople.org/Mate-Desktop/fc18/SPECS/libmatekeyring.spec
SRPM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838327
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
spamassassin-iXhash2-2.05-2.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable
repository.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817306
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838327
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
spamassassin-iXhash2-2.05-2.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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838675
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
python-beautifulsoup4-4.1.1-4.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable
repository.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840162
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828735
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835338
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844170
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843910
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844154
--- Comment #5 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
Please be patient if somebody picks up your review request ;)
Here are my comments (based on your first package version):
Scratch build:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844165
--- Comment #28 from Wolfgang Ulbrich chat-to...@raveit.de ---
upstream accepted Should-set-RestartStyleHint-to-RestartIfRunning-wh.patch
https://github.com/mate-desktop/mate-window-manager/pull/6
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845057
Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812121
Andy Grover agro...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=756465
Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) kwiz...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|kwiz...@gmail.com |
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845107
Bug ID: 845107
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
Severity: medium
Version: rawhide
Priority: medium
CC: nott...@redhat.com,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845107
Adam Miller admil...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841641
Adam Miller admil...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845110
Bug ID: 845110
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
Severity: medium
Version: rawhide
Priority: medium
CC: nott...@redhat.com,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844439
--- Comment #7 from Troy Dawson tdaw...@redhat.com ---
Spec URL:
http://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/openshift-origin/openshift-origin-msg-node-mcollective.spec
SRPM URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845110
Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845110
--- Comment #2 from Tom Lane t...@redhat.com ---
Hm, can you tell libpng is a really ancient package :-)
All changes sound fine to me, specfile and SRPM at the above URLs updated.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845110
Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845110
Tom Lane t...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845110
--- Comment #4 from Tom Lane t...@redhat.com ---
New Package SCM Request
===
Package Name: libpng12
Short Description: Old version of libpng, needed to run old binaries
Owners: tgl
Branches: f18
InitialCC:
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842379
--- Comment #4 from Adam Miller admil...@redhat.com ---
Spec URL: http://maxamillion.fedorapeople.org/mcollective-qpid-plugin.spec
SRPM URL:
http://maxamillion.fedorapeople.org/mcollective-qpid-plugin-0.1.1-2.fc17.src.rpm
I would like to target
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844748
Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844748
Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829030
Troy Dawson tdaw...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tdaw...@redhat.com
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844748
Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844439
--- Comment #8 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org ---
Requires: rubygem(openshift-origin-node)
I cannot find this deps in the review list
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845115
Bug ID: 845115
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
Severity: unspecified
Version: rawhide
Priority: unspecified
CC: nott...@redhat.com,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829030
--- Comment #2 from Anderson Silva ansi...@redhat.com ---
It is for EPEL and Fedora. Note that I am using a drupal template for the spec
file that has been provided by the Fedora community themselves:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845110
Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||limburg...@gmail.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844748
--- Comment #14 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com ---
Unorphaned devel, take ownership of devel and f16, and submit a SCM change
request for f17.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845115
Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844439
--- Comment #9 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org ---
So expect last comment, the package is good. Once openshift-origin-node will be
in, this one will be good.
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844439
Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On||840037
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840037
Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||844439
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829038
Troy Dawson tdaw...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tdaw...@redhat.com
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844748
Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841648
--- Comment #2 from Darryl L. Pierce dpie...@redhat.com ---
(In reply to comment #1)
snip
Seems ruby-devel is needed ( I would have expected it to be pulled by
rubygem-devel to be honest )
Me too. I've added in the BR for ruby-devel and have
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831749
--- Comment #24 from Troy Dawson tdaw...@redhat.com ---
I have done two more informal reviews.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829038
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829030
I believe I am getting better at them.
--
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=760696
Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
--- Comment #8 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845110
Tom Lane t...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831749
--- Comment #25 from Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com ---
Troy,
Your reviews look great, although missing rpmlint output and it looks like they
were not run through mock. Still, I think you have a handle on reviewing. I
will review your package in
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844157
--- Comment #1 from Wolfgang Ulbrich chat-to...@raveit.de ---
new sources for a starting point
SPEC: http://raveit65.fedorapeople.org/Mate-Desktop/fc17/SPECS/mate-panel.spec
SRPM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842379
--- Comment #5 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org ---
Mhh, tarball got redone without changing the version number, that's evil ( and
Fedora review complain, because src.rpm was not updated )
Anyway, you forgot one cleaning thing, and the rest is
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842379
Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@zarb.org
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841648
--- Comment #3 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org ---
I am not sure i will have time to start the review now, so I prefer to let it
unassigned and open to others for the moment
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for
1 - 100 of 141 matches
Mail list logo
