https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=978010
Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=892597
Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855780
Bug 855780 depends on bug 977901, which changed state.
Bug 977901 Summary: java-service-wrapper: Wrong installation directory
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977901
What|Removed |Added
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855780
Bug 855780 depends on bug 977904, which changed state.
Bug 977904 Summary: java-service-wrapper: Please install Maven POM file
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977904
What|Removed |Added
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=890771
--- Comment #8 from Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com ---
Spec URL: http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/edje.spec
SRPM URL: http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/edje-1.7.7-2.fc19.src.rpm
Description:
Abstract GUI layout and animation object library.
Added
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913254
Pavel Zhukov pzhu...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||977986
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=965570
Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=978284
Bug ID: 978284
Summary: Review Request: rubygem-redis - A Ruby client library
for Redis
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
Severity:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976793
--- Comment #5 from Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com ---
Rest assured, it wouldn't be the first project to do that. Project name foo
releases library with SONAME libfoo.so.N in tarball libfoo with headers in
/usr/include/foo (#include
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977646
marcin.du...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958094
Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894413
--- Comment #23 from marcin.du...@gmail.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- No %config files under /usr.
Note:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894413
--- Comment #24 from marcin.du...@gmail.com ---
I'm sorry - discard it - wrong bug!
I(In reply to Marcin.Dulak from comment #23)
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] =
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977646
--- Comment #1 from marcin.du...@gmail.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- No %config files under /usr.
Note:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959647
Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959648
Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=953718
Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956931
Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=964161
Petr Hracek phra...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959650
Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=978345
Bug ID: 978345
Summary: Review Request: libtiff3 - backwards compatibility for
libtiff
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
Severity: medium
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855780
--- Comment #18 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it ---
Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/apacheds-daemon.spec
SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/apacheds-daemon-1.1.8-2.fc18.src.rpm
- replace mvn-rpmbuild with mvn_build
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976919
Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959652
Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=978358
Bug ID: 978358
Summary: Review Request: wildfly-security-manager - WildFly
Security Manager
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
Severity:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=978358
Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||652183 (FE-JAVASIG)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959653
Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956931
--- Comment #10 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu ---
fwiw, I disagree with the recommendation in comment #8 wrt licensing, this
should be sufficient to include in the .spec:
main pkg:
# KDE e.V. may determine that future GPL versions are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956931
Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=978358
gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||punto...@libero.it
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960720
Pete MacKinnon pmack...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959654
Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882482
Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956931
Joseph Marrero jmarr...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(jmarr...@gmail.co |
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956931
--- Comment #12 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
Please recognize the latest comment from Rex Dieter regarding the licenses:
(In reply to Rex Dieter from comment #10)
main pkg:
# KDE e.V. may determine that future GPL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956931
--- Comment #13 from Joseph Marrero jmarr...@gmail.com ---
GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ only then? And both go in the license tag only?
Or should I make a comment specifying that the GPLv2+ is for the main package
and the LGPLv2+ goes to the libs package?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956931
--- Comment #14 from Joseph Marrero jmarr...@gmail.com ---
i.e. Like this:
License:GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+
#GPLv2+ for the main package and LGPLv2+ for the libs package.
??
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=978381
Bug ID: 978381
Summary: Review Request: dleyna-core - Utilities for higher
level dLeyna libraries
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956931
--- Comment #15 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu ---
2 options:
1. basically follow my suggestion in comment #12:
in main pkg near top include the snippet (with comment):
# KDE e.V. may determine that future GPL versions are accepted
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956931
--- Comment #16 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
You can define it separately for each package:
Name: homerun
Version:1.0.0
Release:2%{?dist}
Summary:KDE Application Launcher
License:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956931
--- Comment #17 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu ---
well, strictly, there is an option 3, simply:
# KDE e.V. may determine that future GPL versions are accepted
License: GPLv2 or GPLv3
since this does accurately reflect the combined work
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=978010
--- Comment #1 from Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com ---
Ok, the deps are all wrong :)
What you actually need to BR:
perl, perl(Exporter), perl(lib), perl(strict), perl(Wx::build::MakeMaker), and
wxGTK-devel
ExtUtils::MakeMaker is only used if
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956931
--- Comment #19 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu ---
For background, see thread that includes:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/2011-February/001541.html
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956931
--- Comment #20 from Joseph Marrero jmarr...@gmail.com ---
Thanks Rex for the correct way of doing this.
http://ece.uprm.edu/jmarrero/fedora_packaging/homerun/homerun.spec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956931
--- Comment #21 from Joseph Marrero jmarr...@gmail.com ---
Ahh thanks for the links, reeding...
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956931
--- Comment #18 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu ---
and, please do not simply use GPLv2+ or LGPLv2+, fedora-legal has already
commented that this special KDE case with KDE e.V. may determine that future
GPL versions are accepted cannot use
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=978358
--- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it ---
hi
there are some problem:
[ERROR] Failed to execute goal
org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-compiler-plugin:3.1:compile (default-compile) on
project wildfly-security-manager: Compilation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=885038
Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=978358
gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=967357
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=967357
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
python-phyghtmap-1.45-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-phyghtmap-1.45-2.fc18
--
You are receiving this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=967357
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
python-phyghtmap-1.45-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-phyghtmap-1.45-2.fc17
--
You are receiving this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=967357
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
python-phyghtmap-1.45-2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-phyghtmap-1.45-2.fc19
--
You are receiving this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=892597
--- Comment #3 from Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com ---
You'll need to buildrequire the following:
- perl (called in spec)
- perl(Getopt::Long), ./configure:26
- perl(POSIX), ./configure:27
Don't use absolute paths in your spec.
Call perl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844721
--- Comment #34 from Luis Bazan bazanlui...@gmail.com ---
No more conflicts!
I can close this BZ?
Regards!
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972943
Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|182235 (FE-Legal) |
--- Comment #10
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972943
--- Comment #11 from Kashyap Chamarthy kcham...@redhat.com ---
Thanks Tom, for your comment.
So, Alec, I assume you'd be providing updated SPEC/SRPM with the said examples
elided (is that the right assumption?), so that this review can proceed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972943
--- Comment #12 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com ---
Tom: thanks!
Kashyap: new links:
spec: http://leamas.fedorapeople.org/lpf/3/lpf.spec
srpm: http://leamas.fedorapeople.org/lpf/3/lpf-0-3.46ae0c3.fc18.src.rpm
Changelog:
* Sun Jun 23 2013
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=967357
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958059
--- Comment #13 from Andrea Veri andrea.v...@gmail.com ---
Ah good catch, otherwise I would actually have to bump the date on the posttag
everytime a new change has to happen on the package. Something like
1.20130621svn12%{dist} should do it then
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973069
Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976777
--- Comment #2 from T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com ---
Spec: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/node_modules/nodejs-i2c.spec
SRPM:
http://patches.fedorapeople.org/node_modules/nodejs-i2c-0.1.3-2.fc19.src.rpm
* Wed Jun 26 2013 T.C.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977136
T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977133
T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977132
T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977136
T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=978381
Debarshi Ray debars...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||978489
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=978489
Debarshi Ray debars...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On||978381
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=978489
Bug ID: 978489
Summary: Review Request: dleyna-connector-dbus - D-Bus
connector for dLeyna services
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=978494
Debarshi Ray debars...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On||978381
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=978381
Debarshi Ray debars...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||978494
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=978489
Debarshi Ray debars...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||978494
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=978494
Debarshi Ray debars...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On||978489
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975590
--- Comment #10 from Lon Hohberger l...@redhat.com ---
It looks like 0755 is fine for this and I can just the defattr line.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975590
--- Comment #11 from Lon Hohberger l...@redhat.com ---
644 is fine for all of the files as well.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977132
--- Comment #1 from T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com ---
A. nodejs-0.10.12 has been in updates-testing for a few days and should fix at
least that part of the problem.
B. I can't approve a package with precompiled JS without FPC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977133
T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844721
--- Comment #35 from Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com ---
No, you need to increase the version-release in the Obsoletes tag (your
%{obs_ver} value to be higher than the last build for Fedora 18), submit a
build and updates for the branches
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977132
--- Comment #2 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org ---
Oh yes, I was going to ask your advice about this package.
I've actually deleted all of the minified JS in the %prep section, so as it
stands there's no precompiled JS. But of
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973069
--- Comment #3 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com ---
I certainly understand that. What I've got so far is [1]. Do you think this is
clear enough (it could certainly be more clear...) ?
A sidenote: in their forum I have a thread [2] with a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916553
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|ghc-setenv-0.1.0-1.fc17
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973069
--- Comment #4 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com ---
You need to explain to Spotify clearly and simply, what you are doing and how
Fedora would be distributing it (and not the Spotify client), then ask for
someone from Spotify to confirm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973069
--- Comment #5 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com ---
OK, fair enough, I'll try to do that. However, it might take some time. They
are not to responsive in general, and since they are Swedes a lot of them are
on long summer holidays now.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959655
Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=978569
Bug ID: 978569
Summary: Review Request: thredds - THREDDS Data Server (TDS)
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
Severity: medium
Priority: medium
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=978569
gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On||977589
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977589
gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||978569
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977136
Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977133
--- Comment #2 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org ---
= Things to Consider
[ ]: This module is deprecated upstream.
Consider working with upstreams using this module to port to
read-package-json.
Oh, I didn't
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977133
Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976777
Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959660
Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=978569
gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||652183 (FE-JAVASIG)
--
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977133
--- 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.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977133
Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
--
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977136
--- Comment #3 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.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977136
Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
--
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959662
Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959663
Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=978587
Bug ID: 978587
Summary: Review Request: eclipse-testng - TestNG plug-in for
Eclipse
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
Severity: medium
1 - 100 of 149 matches
Mail list logo
