https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845107
Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vondr...@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810676
Julian Leyh jul...@vgai.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On|834747 |
--- Comment #14 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834747
Julian Leyh jul...@vgai.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|810676 |
--
You are receiving this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848664
Bug ID: 848664
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
Severity: medium
Version: rawhide
Priority: medium
CC: nott...@redhat.com,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844164
Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848404
Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848670
Bug ID: 848670
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
Severity: medium
Version: rawhide
Priority: medium
CC: nott...@redhat.com,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848670
Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||840366
--
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848664
Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||840364
--
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836014
Pavel Zhukov pa...@zhukoff.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pa...@zhukoff.net
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810676
--- Comment #15 from Pavel Zhukov pa...@zhukoff.net ---
(In reply to comment #6)
There are several files in the directory include that look like bundled
libraries. Zlib is a clear case and easy to handle: The directory
include/zlib must be
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836014
Julian Leyh jul...@vgai.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(jul...@vgai.de) |
--- Comment #18 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848711
Bug ID: 848711
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
Severity: medium
Version: rawhide
Priority: medium
CC: nott...@redhat.com,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844164
--- Comment #25 from Wolfgang Ulbrich chat-to...@raveit.de ---
New Package SCM Request
===
Package Name: mate-vfs
Short Description: The MATE virtual file-system libraries
Owners: raveit65 vicodan rdieter
Branches: f16 f17 f18
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844164
Wolfgang Ulbrich chat-to...@raveit.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848711
Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821146
--- Comment #5 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it ---
Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jruby-rack/1/jruby-rack.spec
SRPM URL:
http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jruby-rack/1/jruby-rack-1.0.10-2.fc16.src.rpm
- Added tomcat 7.x apis support
- Added
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810676
--- Comment #16 from Pavel Zhukov pa...@zhukoff.net ---
New SRPM:
http://landgraf.fedorapeople.org/packages/requested/aws/aws-2.11.0-2.fc17.src.rpm
Mock is OK.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848664
Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848670
Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845805
--- Comment #4 from Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com ---
- Is there any benefit of moving the various doc files in %install section?
The
optimal solution, I think, is to leave them in %{gem_instdir} and mark them as
%doc there.
It is good
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848670
Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845805
Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848670
Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820090
--- Comment #18 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=844164
--- Comment #26 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=847501
--- Comment #6 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=847571
--- Comment #7 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=848314
--- Comment #4 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=848670
--- Comment #4 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=848670
Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845805
--- Comment #6 from Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com ---
I don't see any such discussion, would you care to post a link here?
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/2012-August/008598.html
I also meant CHANGELOG :) Please move
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845805
Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846597
Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845805
--- Comment #8 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=846597
Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||limburg...@gmail.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841713
--- Comment #1 from Brian Pepple bdpep...@gmail.com ---
Spec URL: http://bpepple.fedorapeople.org/rpms/gstreamer1-plugins-good.spec
SRPM URL:
http://bpepple.fedorapeople.org/rpms/gstreamer1-plugins-good-0.11.93-1.fc17.src.rpm
* Wed Aug 15 2012
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846597
--- Comment #10 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=845805
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
rubygem-ttfunk-1.0.3-4.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-ttfunk-1.0.3-4.fc18
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845805
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845107
--- Comment #8 from Adam Miller admil...@redhat.com ---
David, I don't entirely follow ... I install %{SOURCE1} on line 78 of the spec
file and the %ghost file was specified by the upstream author of the plugin. I
will ask for clarification.
No
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845805
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
rubygem-ttfunk-1.0.3-4.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-ttfunk-1.0.3-4.fc16
--
You are receiving this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845805
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
rubygem-ttfunk-1.0.3-4.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-ttfunk-1.0.3-4.fc17
--
You are receiving this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845805
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
rubygem-ttfunk-1.0.3-4.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-ttfunk-1.0.3-4.el6
--
You are receiving this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822926
--- Comment #6 from Lukas Zapletal l...@redhat.com ---
Everything fixed:
http://lzap.fedorapeople.org/fedora-packaging/katello-cli/1.1.2-1/
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848466
Tim Waugh twa...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|twa...@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844164
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844164
--- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
mate-vfs-1.4.0-10.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mate-vfs-1.4.0-10.fc18
--
You are receiving this mail because:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848466
Jiri Popelka jpope...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(jpopelka@redhat.c |
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=760177
Marek Vavrusa marek.vavr...@nic.cz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842064
--- Comment #4 from Damian Wrobel dwro...@ertelnet.rybnik.pl ---
Volker,
Thank you for taking the review.
All your comments were taken into account, except the ChangeLog installation as
it's already installed.
SRPM URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848711
Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821146
gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||652183 (FE-JAVASIG)
--
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821146
--- Comment #6 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it ---
tested on: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4395814
without the proper bytelist (= 1.0.8-3) and jnr-constants (= 0.7-6) version
requires by pom file
--
You are receiving
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845107
--- Comment #9 from Adam Miller admil...@redhat.com ---
SPEC URL:
http://maxamillion.fedorapeople.org/rubygem-openshift-origin-msg-broker-mcollective.spec
SRPM URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845107
--- Comment #10 from Adam Miller admil...@redhat.com ---
David,
I got clarification on the %ghost file entry. That file originates from,
and it provided by, the mcollective package but is required by this package.
The configuration file can
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=84
--- Comment #5 from Keith Robertson krobe...@redhat.com ---
(In reply to comment #2)
- BuildRequires: python-setuptools-devel should be just
python-setuptools.
Done
- Your Requies: python-lxml should specify the version as in setup.py (=
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=84
--- Comment #6 from Keith Robertson krobe...@redhat.com ---
I'll update the spec with a fedorahosted project as soon as I get one created.
cheers
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=826483
Michel Alexandre Salim michel+...@sylvestre.me changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847457
--- Comment #3 from Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com ---
Is there any particular reason why not package the most recent version?
Yes. 1.4.0.2 depends on hoe ~ 3.0 which is not in EPEL and F16. My plan is to
later upgrade to 1.4.0.2 in rawhide.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848466
--- Comment #4 from Tim Waugh twa...@redhat.com ---
Oh, the first of those should have been a pass, sorry.
[+]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825494
Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841713
Bastien Nocera bnoc...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bnoc...@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848208
--- Comment #13 from Gregor Tätzner gre...@freenet.de ---
nice, additional notes:
- BuildRequires: gcc-c++
is part of the minimal build env, remove it
- please escape the macros in the changelog with two %
i.e. %%{name}
-%files devel-doc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841713
Brian Pepple bdpep...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841713
--- Comment #4 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=848043
--- Comment #9 from Sebastien Caps sebastien.c...@guardis.com ---
Ok answer from upstream licence is BSD (don't know why mandrake mention GPLv2+)
I have created systemd scripts I will try to push them upstream when validated.
SRPM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848466
--- Comment #5 from Jiri Popelka jpope...@redhat.com ---
The -doc subpackage doesn't contain any binary or source code so my personal
view is that no. But I've added the requirement to comply with the second MUST.
Spec URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848466
Tim Waugh twa...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848466
Jiri Popelka jpope...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819338
Yanko Kaneti yan...@declera.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||yan...@declera.com
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848466
--- Comment #8 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=842064
--- Comment #5 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at ---
Great! You already have green light. You can request CVS.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=826483
Shakthi Kannan shakthim...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(shakthimaan@gmail |
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848208
--- Comment #14 from Gregor Tätzner gre...@freenet.de ---
(In reply to comment #13)
this one is making me really nervous:
csync-libs.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libcsync.so.0.1.8 /lib64/libssl.so.10
The binary
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848353
Pierre pierrejourda...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847501
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
readosm-1.0.0a-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/readosm-1.0.0a-1.fc17
--
You are receiving this mail because:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847501
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847501
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
readosm-1.0.0a-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/readosm-1.0.0a-1.fc18
--
You are receiving this mail because:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847501
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
readosm-1.0.0a-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/readosm-1.0.0a-1.fc16
--
You are receiving this mail because:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847501
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
readosm-1.0.0a-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/readosm-1.0.0a-1.el6
--
You are receiving this mail because:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848353
--- Comment #2 from Pierre pierrejourda...@gmail.com ---
Created attachment 604977
-- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=604977action=edit
fedora-review result for python-pthreading
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839064
--- Comment #36 from Brenton Leanhardt blean...@redhat.com ---
Hi Vít, Let me know if this looks OK:
* Thu Aug 16 2012 Brenton Leanhardt blean...@redhat.com - 0.13.3-7
- Using rubygem-devel macros and the exclude macro
- Removed SELinux dir from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845805
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844164
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819338
--- Comment #6 from Colin Walters walt...@redhat.com ---
(In reply to comment #5)
imho the naming is unwieldy . uchroot ?
Eh...I'm not going to rename it now honestly. The real endgame hopefully is
that the kernel allows this by default, and
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841243
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841713
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841713
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
gstreamer1-0.11.93-1.fc18, gstreamer1-plugins-base-0.11.93-1.fc18,
gstreamer1-plugins-good-0.11.93-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for
Fedora 18.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848043
--- Comment #10 from Brenton Leanhardt blean...@redhat.com ---
Thanks for tracking that down. Unfortunately there definitely appears to be
some conflicting licenses mentioned in the code. I'll attach the output of the
fedora-review license
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785371
--- Comment #67 from Jeremy Newton alexjn...@hotmail.com ---
(In reply to comment #66)
speed-dreams-robots-base needs to be noarch'ed. It contains only files under
/usr/share and therefore must not contain any arch-dependent files.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848043
--- Comment #11 from Brenton Leanhardt blean...@redhat.com ---
Created attachment 604981
-- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=604981action=edit
files with conflicting licenses
You can see there are some files with GPL licenses and
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839064
--- Comment #37 from Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com ---
Brenton,
Spec file looks pretty good. While not forbidden by the packaging guidelines,
I generally feel it is bad practice to have conditionals in a spec file for
EPEL vs Fedora. They are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842064
Damian Wrobel dwro...@ertelnet.rybnik.pl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842064
--- Comment #7 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=839064
--- Comment #38 from Steven Dake sd...@redhat.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 messages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839064
--- Comment #39 from Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com ---
Note:
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[-]: MUST Large
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839064
--- Comment #40 from Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com ---
Brenton,
Nice job! I am convinced you know how to provide competent reviews and
competently package for Fedora. Welcome to the packagers group! When you
receive notification from the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848211
--- Comment #3 from Gregor Tätzner gre...@freenet.de ---
a more in deep look:
- the package contains desktop file icons - you must update the icon cache:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache
- mirall.x86_64: W:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839064
Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
---
1 - 100 of 171 matches
Mail list logo
