https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846928
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System ---
python-walkdir-0.3-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-walkdir-0.3-1.el6
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846928
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System ---
python-walkdir-0.3-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-walkdir-0.3-1.fc17
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC li
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846928
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System ---
python-walkdir-0.3-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-walkdir-0.3-1.fc18
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC li
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846928
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--
You are receiving th
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852914
Pierre-YvesChibon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|pin...@pingoured.fr,|nott...@redhat.com,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852851
--- Comment #2 from Matt Spaulding ---
>
> 6. The README specifies that the jar can be built with "ant -Ddebug=off all
> doc" to avoid building in debug mode. This should probably be done. I assume
> there is no need for debug mode since Java do
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825593
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System ---
bkhive-1.1.1-4.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 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=825593
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System ---
bkhive-1.1.1-4.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 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=842386
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #11 from Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842386
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System ---
joystick-support-1.0.0-4.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/joystick-support-1.0.0-4.fc17
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842386
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System ---
joystick-support-1.0.0-4.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/joystick-support-1.0.0-4.fc16
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on t
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842386
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System ---
joystick-support-1.0.0-4.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/joystick-support-1.0.0-4.fc18
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on t
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842386
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--
You are receiving th
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852898
Ralf Corsepius changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rc040...@freenet.de
--- Comment #4 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833623
--- Comment #3 from Michael Cronenworth ---
Thanks.
New spec: http://michael.cronenworth.com/RPMS/mingw-nettle.spec
New SRPM: http://michael.cronenworth.com/RPMS/mingw-nettle-2.4-2.fc17.src.rpm
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are o
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833622
--- Comment #14 from Michael Cronenworth ---
Very well. I will defer to your judgement. Wrappers removed.
New spec: http://michael.cronenworth.com/RPMS/mingw-gmp.spec
New SRPM: http://michael.cronenworth.com/RPMS/mingw-gmp-5.0.2-4.fc17.src.rpm
S
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833623
Ralf Corsepius changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rc040...@freenet.de
--- Comment #2 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830328
--- Comment #5 from Jasper St. Pierre ---
I've updated the specfile to update to the 0.2 release.
--
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=833622
--- Comment #13 from Ralf Corsepius ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> (In reply to comment #11)
> > * What is reason to run the autotools while building?
> > gmp is supposed to build fine for mingw without it (and it actually does).
>
> I was fo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852851
--- Comment #1 from Matt Spaulding ---
Hi Marek,
There's a few issues I've listed at the bottom that should be addressed.
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=749608
--- Comment #15 from Praveen Kumar ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> Scratch build:
> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4434898
>
> It fails because a missing desktop-file-utils in BuildRequires.
Done
http://koji.fedoraproject.org
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852851
Matt Spaulding changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847435
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833622
--- Comment #12 from Michael Cronenworth ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> * What is reason to run the autotools while building?
> gmp is supposed to build fine for mingw without it (and it actually does).
I was following the native package spec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852892
Jan Vcelak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--
You are receiving this mail be
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852893
Jan Vcelak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--
You are receiving this mail be
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852892
Jan Vcelak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|0x |Package Review
Assignee|dw...@inf
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822831
--- Comment #3 from Sebastian Dyroff ---
I am not a package maintainer and I am still looking for a sponsor.
I used gentlyweb-utils_1.5.orig.tar.gz for the review. Hope that the upstream
file with the right sha256sum will become available again.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852893
Jan Vcelak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jvce...@redhat.com
--
You are receiving th
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840244
--- Comment #18 from pcpa ---
May thanks for the review! New package addressing the issues:
Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pcpa/surf-geometry.spec
SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pcpa/surf-geometry-1.0.6-4.fc19.src.rpm
--
You are receiv
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822831
--- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo ---
hi Matt,
there is not any difference in the sources could be used both ...
but to simplify would keep the current version field (1.5)
and use the second file ... how do you feel?
http://ftp.de.debian.org/debia
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852898
--- Comment #3 from Thibault North ---
Oops forgot the FE-NEEDSPONSOR. Looking for a sponsor...
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing l
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852898
Thibault North changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||thibault.no...@gmail.com
Assi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852898
--- Comment #1 from Gerd v. Egidy ---
Some additional info for review:
rpmlint output:
# rpmlint /home/gerd/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/CImg-devel-1.5.0-4.fc17.noarch.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
# rpmlint /home/gerd/rp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852898
Gerd v. Egidy changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
--
You are rece
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852898
Bug ID: 852898
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
Severity: medium
Version: rawhide
Priority: unspecified
CC: nott...@redhat.com,
package-review@lists.fedo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806037
--- Comment #7 from Volker Fröhlich ---
Building with openjpeg works, locally on F16 as well as on F17:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4436093
I missed the newer API version somehow.
I thought about spelling it "pre-cooked"!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852893
Jaroslav Škarvada changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvce...@redhat.com
Flag
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852893
Jaroslav Škarvada changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On||852892
--
You are receiving this ma
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852892
Jaroslav Škarvada changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dw...@infradead.org,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852893
Bug ID: 852893
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=852892
Bug ID: 852892
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=848551
--- Comment #14 from Jon Ciesla ---
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Mario, please take ownership of review BZs, thanks!
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825599
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System ---
samdump2-3.0.0-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/samdump2-3.0.0-1.fc17
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for t
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825599
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System ---
samdump2-3.0.0-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/samdump2-3.0.0-1.el6
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825599
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System ---
samdump2-3.0.0-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/samdump2-3.0.0-1.fc16
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for t
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825599
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--
You are receiving th
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806037
--- Comment #6 from Jos de Kloe ---
new versions of the SRPM and SPEC file are here:
Spec URL: http://jdekloe.nl/Fedora/pygrib.spec
SRPM URL: http://jdekloe.nl/Fedora/pygrib-1.9.4-2.fc17.src.rpm
@Thomas:
> Don't own %{python_sitearch}/ directly
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835015
Mario Blättermann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nob...@f
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822831
Matt Spaulding changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mspauldin...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 f
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848551
Kai Engert (:kaie) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #13 from Ka
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851746
--- Comment #2 from Ralph Bean ---
Great. I left "urls" lower-cased... personal preference.
I cut a new upstream release that removes the shebang.
Spec URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/bitlyclip.spec
SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/bitlyclip-0
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851745
--- 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=842386
--- 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=851745
--- Comment #7 from Ralph Bean ---
New Package SCM Request
===
Package Name: python-bitlyapi
Short Description: A thin python wrapper for the bit.ly REST API
Owners: ralph
Branches: f17 f18
InitialCC:
--
You are receiving th
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842386
Bruno Wolff III changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #6 from Bruno
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851745
Ralph Bean changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #6 from Ralph Bean
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847385
Mario Blättermann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from Mario B
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787517
--- Comment #2 from Mario Blättermann ---
Any progress with solving the mentioned problems?
--
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=852851
Marek Goldmann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||652183 (FE-JAVASIG)
--
You are receivi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852851
Bug ID: 852851
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=822889
--- 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=842386
Mario Blättermann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from M
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822889
gil cattaneo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #4 from gil catta
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=735554
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #14 from Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851746
Mario Blättermann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851745
Mario Blättermann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from M
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=749608
--- Comment #14 from Mario Blättermann ---
Scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4434898
It fails because a missing desktop-file-utils in BuildRequires.
Some more issues:
Drop cairo-devel from BR, it is a requireme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847867
Randall "Randy" Berry changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 fr
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784175
--- Comment #13 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=784175
Shakthi Kannan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RELEASE_PENDING
Flags|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851747
--- Comment #3 from Patrick Uiterwijk ---
I thought it would be best to stay with the official plugin.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review ma
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822889
Matt Spaulding changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nob...@fedo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822889
--- Comment #3 from Matt Spaulding ---
Great! Here's my formal review:
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: No rpmlin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852623
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852211
--- Comment #8 from Lukas Zapletal ---
I really do not understand why rpmbuild is quoting the parameter. Tried several
scenarios, without any luck. I will need to patch it.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851768
--- Comment #1 from Sebastien Caps ---
el6 build ok
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4434512
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833622
Ralf Corsepius changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rc040...@freenet.de
--- Comment #11 fro
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850789
Jon Ciesla changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||at...@redhat.com
--- Comment #19 from Jon C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848043
--- Comment #13 from Sebastien Caps ---
fc18 build
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4434562
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-re
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850789
--- Comment #18 from Michael Scherer ---
That's the same upstream in both case, and while I didn't check the code, I
understand this mail as "I took my code and put it in quagga" :
http://lists.quagga.net/pipermail/quagga-dev/2012-February/00912
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852778
--- Comment #1 from Kalev Lember ---
Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4434540
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
pack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847385
Praveen Kumar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review?
--
You are receiving thi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847385
--- Comment #1 from Praveen Kumar ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
C/C++
[x]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852778
Bug ID: 852778
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=850789
--- Comment #17 from Jon Ciesla ---
Given that this is the referece implementation, it seems like having quagga
rename theirs would be preferable. WRT duplication, is it really duplication?
My understanding was that quagga's was a separate impl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852623
--- Comment #3 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=852326
--- Comment #4 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=846562
--- Comment #20 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=821094
--- 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=852211
--- Comment #7 from Petr Šabata ---
I usually just patch config.mk to suit Fedora needs.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
pac
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852211
--- Comment #6 from Lukas Zapletal ---
I see it's not used:
http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/3526/4433526/build.log
Investigating.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852211
--- Comment #5 from Lukas Zapletal ---
It's unused by default, I have decided to leverage it until there is a new
version with dedicated variables for packagers.
config.mk:
CFLAGS += -g --std=c99 -pedantic -Wall -Wno-overlength-strings -Os ${
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852174
Ondrej Kozina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Group|qa, private, devel |
--
You are receiving this mail because
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817597
Jussi Lehtola changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(jussi.lehtola@iki |
|.fi)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817597
jonas.rebm...@googlemail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(jussi.lehtola@iki
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852329
--- Comment #4 from Federico Simoncelli ---
Spec URL: http://fsimonce.fedorapeople.org/vdsm-hooks/vdsm-hooks.spec
SRPM URL:
http://fsimonce.fedorapeople.org/vdsm-hooks/vdsm-hook-4.9.6-1.fc17.src.rpm
Description: Virtual Desktop Server Manager Hoo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852329
--- Comment #3 from Alan Pevec ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #0)
> > Branch: EL-6
>
> BTW, rawhide branch is always created for new packages
NM, there are examples of "Only ever a EPEL6 package."
e.g. http://pkgs.fedorapro
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852329
--- Comment #2 from Alan Pevec ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> Branch: EL-6
BTW, rawhide branch is always created for new packages, not sure what's your
plan for vdsm-hook-* subpackages of vdsm in Fedora, they would conflict with
this.
--
You a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852329
Alan Pevec changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ape...@redhat.com
--- Comment #1 from Alan
1 - 100 of 133 matches
Mail list logo