https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831749
Troy Dawson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #37 from Troy Daws
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843747
Kushal Das changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #3 from Kushal Das
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844043
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System ---
objectweb-asm4-4.0-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/objectweb-asm4-4.0-2.fc17
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC li
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843404
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System ---
javaparser-1.0.8-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/javaparser-1.0.8-1.fc17
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list f
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843404
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|POST|MODIFIED
--
You are receiving th
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844792
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System ---
classycle-1.4-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/classycle-1.4-2.fc17
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844792
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--
You are receiving th
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844090
--- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla ---
SRPM: http://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/Box2D/Box2D-2.2.1-2.fc17.src.rpm
SPEC: http://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/Box2D/Box2D.spec
Now without bundled libs.
I tried building numptyphysics against it, and
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812121
--- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla ---
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
package-review@lists.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812121
Andy Grover changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #7 from Andy Grove
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755510
--- Comment #36 from Michael Schwendt ---
Re: comment 34
Not really. Bug 177841 is just the need-sponsor queue:
http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEEDSPONSOR.html
It is not the full list of package review requests. That's this one:
h
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=795492
Alexander Kurtakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) |
--
You are receiving this mail be
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=795492
Alexander Kurtakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845319
Bug ID: 845319
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
Severity: medium
Version: rawhide
Priority: medium
CC: nott...@redhat.com,
package-review@lists.fedorapro
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844043
Mikolaj Izdebski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--
You are receiving this m
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=752169
--- Comment #57 from Tim Lauridsen ---
the gnome shell theme packages should be installed in and only own that dir
/usr/share/themes/Zukitwo/gnome-shell
/usr/share/themes/Zukitwo-Dark/gnome-shell
gtk-2 theme should be installed in and only own
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845314
Bug ID: 845314
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
Severity: medium
Version: rawhide
Priority: medium
CC: nott...@redhat.com,
package-review@lists.fedorapro
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832130
--- Comment #7 from Jiri Popelka ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> cups-filters.x86_64: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US
This must be a problem on your side.
Maybe installing hunspell-en or aspell-en ?
> cups-filters.x86_64: E: non-readable
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842379
--- Comment #6 from Adam Miller ---
Spec URL: http://maxamillion.fedorapeople.org/mcollective-qpid-plugin.spec
SRPM URL:
http://maxamillion.fedorapeople.org/mcollective-qpid-plugin-0.1.1-3.fc17.src.rpm
I completely goofed, I was referencing the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844792
--- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla ---
Git done (by process-git-requests).
There's an open Trac.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing lis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842013
--- Comment #15 from Jon Ciesla ---
Use FAS account, not email address. Names in summary and SCM request don't
match, please correct, and don't request f18, it's not branched yet and
master is automatic.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844033
--- Comment #1 from Andy Grimm ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
[x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845245
--- Comment #3 from Jan Safranek ---
Rpmlint
---
Checking: cura-providers-0.0.1-1.fc17.src.rpm
cura-powermanagement-0.0.1-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm
cura-providers-0.0.1-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm
cura-providers-debuginfo-0.0.1-1.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844090
--- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla ---
Ok, the glui bug is ready:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845308
Still working on Box2D's build with system libs.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845245
--- Comment #2 from Jan Safranek ---
C/C++
[x]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: MUST ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: MUST Pack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845308
Jon Ciesla changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||844090
--
You are receiving this mail beca
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844090
Jon Ciesla changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On||845308
--
You are receiving this mail beca
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845308
Bug ID: 845308
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
Severity: unspecified
Version: rawhide
Priority: unspecified
CC: nott...@redhat.com,
package-review@lists
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843029
Volker Fröhlich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|volke...@gmx.at
Flags|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755510
--- Comment #35 from nicolas.vievi...@univ-valenciennes.fr ---
(In reply to comment #31)
Jeff,
Thank you very much for your review and your advice. This make this package
more conform regarding Fedora Packaging Guidelines. Sorry for my late respo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844792
Marek Goldmann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+, fedora-cvs?
--- Comment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842013
Steve Dickson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #14 from Steve D
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845021
--- Comment #5 from Troy Dawson ---
Spec URL:
http://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/openshift-origin/rubygem-openshift-origin-auth-mongo.spec
SRPM URL:
http://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/openshift-origin/rubygem-openshift-origin-auth-mongo-0.8.5-5.fc18.sr
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844721
--- Comment #4 from Luis Bazan ---
Hi
I fix all
SPEC:http://lbazan.fedorapeople.org/python-django-flash.spec
SRPM:http://lbazan.fedorapeople.org/python-django-flash-1.8-2.fc17.src.rpm
Regards!
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844792
--- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla ---
Marek, please set the review flag to +.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@li
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=760696
--- Comment #9 from Troy Dawson ---
Spec URL: http://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/rubygem-mongo/rubygem-mongo.spec
SRPM URL:
http://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/rubygem-mongo/rubygem-mongo-1.4.0-5.fc18.src.rpm
- Changed ruby(bson) to rubygem(bson)
- Cha
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844043
--- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla ---
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
package-review@lists.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832130
--- Comment #6 from Tomas Hozza ---
Review of cups-filters-1.0.20-2.fc17:
Legend: "+" means OK, "-" means not OK.
- MUST(1): rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces.
+ MUST: The package must be named accordi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844164
--- Comment #1 from Wolfgang Ulbrich ---
new start point.
SPEC: http://raveit65.fedorapeople.org/Mate-Desktop/fc17/SPECS/mate-vfs.spec
SRPM:
http://raveit65.fedorapeople.org/Mate-Desktop/fc17/SRPM/mate-vfs-1.4.0-6.fc17.src.rpm
--
You are rece
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844043
gil cattaneo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|POST|ASSIGNED
Flags|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844792
gil cattaneo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review+ |fedora-review?, fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845012
--- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo ---
Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/spock/1/spock.spec
SRPM URL:
http://gil.fedorapeople.org/spock/1/spock-0.6-0.2.groovy.1.8.fc16.src.rpm
- Removed nonexisting requires
--
You are receiving this mail beca
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845245
Jan Safranek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844792
Marek Goldmann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Mare
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834070
ppecka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||808577
--
You are receiving this mail because:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845012
--- Comment #2 from Mikolaj Izdebski ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requireme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755510
--- Comment #34 from Steven Dake ---
No problem on delays. Yes 177841 is the right bug to find atleast two bugs to
provide reviews of.
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=844033
Andy Grimm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831749
--- Comment #36 from Steven Dake ---
Troy,
Congratulations - welcome to the packager group! The next step is to create an
SCM request. See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_SCM_admin_requests
Regards
-steve
--
You are receiving this ma
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831749
Steven Dake changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #35 from Steven
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831749
--- Comment #34 from Steven Dake ---
Vit,
Thanks for notes about rubygem docs.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-revi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755510
--- Comment #33 from nicolas.vievi...@univ-valenciennes.fr ---
(In reply to comment #29)
Steven,
> I'll sponsor you.
Thank you for the interst you show on this Review Request, and your proposal to
sponsor me.
> To join the packager group you ne
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844792
--- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo ---
Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/classycle/1/classycle.spec
SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/classycle/1/classycle-1.4-2.fc16.src.rpm
- Remove the Maven build method
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844674
Alan Pevec changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|RAWHIDE |NEXTRELEASE
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817315
--- Comment #37 from Jon Ciesla ---
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
package-review@lists
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844792
--- Comment #2 from Marek Goldmann ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Rpmlint output:
SPECS/classycle.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: classycle-1.4-src-svn.tar.gz
0
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817315
pcpa changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #36 from pcpa ---
New Pa
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817315
--- Comment #35 from pcpa ---
(In reply to comment #34)
> Woah.
>
> I haven't seen an updated spec file with one of the 2 suggested license
> clarifications but I'm sure you will add them in git.
Yes, my plan was to update it in git. Since yo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844043
Mikolaj Izdebski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844043
--- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo ---
Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/objectweb-asm4/1/objectweb-asm4.spec
SRPM URL:
http://gil.fedorapeople.org/objectweb-asm4/1/objectweb-asm4-4.0-2.fc16.src.rpm
-Fixed incoherent version in changelog
--
Y
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839142
--- Comment #6 from Matěj Cepl ---
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package
You should ask for the git
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_SCM_admin_requests) now
--
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845264
Mikolaj Izdebski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nob...@fe
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844674
Alan Pevec changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845221
--- Comment #7 from Peter Lemenkov ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> is this useable with asterisk ?
>
> I think for some reason jcollie remove ilbc from asterisk package.
Should be compatible. This package contains a compatibility layer with the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845264
Tomas Radej changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mizde...@redhat.com
Blocks|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844314
Mikolaj Izdebski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|mizde...@redha
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845221
--- Comment #6 from Itamar Reis Peixoto ---
** removed.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.o
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845264
Bug ID: 845264
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
Severity: medium
Version: rawhide
Priority: medium
CC: nott...@redhat.com,
package-review@lists.fedorapro
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845221
Itamar Reis Peixoto changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ita...@ispbrasil.com.br,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843404
--- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla ---
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
package-review@lists.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845012
Mikolaj Izdebski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844043
--- Comment #3 from Mikolaj Izdebski ---
I forgot to explain why this package still needs work:
The changelog entry for version "4.0-1" is incorrect. It should be either
"0:4.0-1.fc18" or "0:4.0-1". Please change this and then i will approve this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843404
gil cattaneo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #4 from gil catta
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845221
--- Comment #4 from Tom "spot" Callaway ---
It's Google code, I'm not sure what you were expecting. ;)
Anyways, I don't think any of the above items necessary preclude webrtc from
going into Fedora, as long as there is a maintainer who understan
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845262
Bug ID: 845262
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
Severity: medium
Version: rawhide
Priority: medium
CC: nott...@redhat.com,
package-review@lists.fedorapro
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844314
Mikolaj Izdebski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844792
Marek Goldmann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845221
--- Comment #3 from Peter Lemenkov ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> FWIW, I had to make webrtc packages for Chromium, they should be okay for
> someone to maintain in Fedora, I'm just not incredibly motivated to do it by
> myself (although, I'd be
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831749
--- Comment #33 from Troy Dawson ---
Spec URL: http://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/rubygem-sshkey/rubygem-sshkey.spec
SRPM URL:
http://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/rubygem-sshkey/rubygem-sshkey-1.3.1-2.fc18.src.rpm
- License is in both packages
-- Regul
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844748
--- Comment #20 from Richard W.M. Jones ---
Something in Firefox keeps changing that fedora-cvs flag ...
--
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=785606
Remi Collet changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Remi Co
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785606
--- Comment #6 from Remi Collet ---
Could: remove "localized" php.ini (no more useful)
Could: requires php(language) >= 5.2.0 per new PHP Guildelines,
but this is fedora specific (for now), so php-common seems acceptable as you
target both fedo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844043
--- Comment #2 from Mikolaj Izdebski ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requireme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785606
Remi Collet changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|fed...@famillecollet.com
--- Comment #5 fr
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843404
Mikolaj Izdebski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845221
Tom "spot" Callaway changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tcall...@redhat.com
--- Comment #2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844748
--- Comment #19 from Jon Ciesla ---
Already done.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
htt
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785480
Remi Collet changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On||785479 (horde-constraint)
--
You are rece
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785479
Remi Collet changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||785480 (horde-log)
--
You are receiving t
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844748
Richard W.M. Jones changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #18 from Ri
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=837726
--- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla ---
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
package-review@lists.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845197
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System ---
rubygem-pry-0.9.10-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-pry-0.9.10-1.fc17
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC li
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845197
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--
You are receiving th
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845245
Bug ID: 845245
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
Severity: medium
Version: rawhide
Priority: medium
CC: nott...@redhat.com,
package-review@lists.fedorapro
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838540
--- Comment #4 from David Cameron ---
Thanks for the feedback!
In response to the first issue, the library in this package is a plugin and so
does not need to be in a devel package.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackag
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=837726
--- Comment #8 from Gerard Ryan ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> There is only one thing you forgot, please add the Apache license to the
> packages too. You can do this at the import time.
>
> Otherwise looks good now, APPROVED.
>
> Scratch buil
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=837726
Gerard Ryan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--
You are receiving this mai
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833511
Ales Kozumplik changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785493
Remi Collet changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Remi Co
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785493
Remi Collet changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|fed...@famillecollet.com
--- Comment #5 fr
101 - 200 of 235 matches
Mail list logo