https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1003057
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
irstlm-5.80.03-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/irstlm-5.80.03-2.fc20
--
You are receiving this mail because:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021721
--- Comment #16 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl ---
So, this should be placed into a separate package in the spec?
No, a separate package should be created, using upstream sources. Hopefully the
divergence between bundled
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=910793
--- Comment #30 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
spice-html5-0.1.4-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/spice-html5-0.1.4-1.el6
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022407
Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
--
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022407
--- Comment #17 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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022407
--- Comment #18 from Tim Lauridsen t...@rasmil.dk ---
Thanks for review, Jerry !
--
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=1021721
--- Comment #17 from Erik Johnson e...@saltstack.com ---
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #16)
So, this should be placed into a separate package in the spec?
No, a separate package should be created, using upstream
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=881753
--- Comment #9 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it ---
found a patch for hsqldb 2.x but is NOT applicable to this release
see https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-batch/pull/145
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022407
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
yumdaemon-0.9.2-5.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/yumdaemon-0.9.2-5.fc20
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022407
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022407
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
yumdaemon-0.9.2-5.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/yumdaemon-0.9.2-5.fc19
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283
--- Comment #9 from Mosaab Alzoubi moc...@hotmail.com ---
RE-review ::
1. Done
2. Done
3. Done
4. Done
5. Done
6. Done
7. Done
8. Done
9. Done
10. ??? Explain , make (all) isn't do any thing !
11. Done
12. Done
Ok guys :
I need this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015263
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|CLOSED |ON_QA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853553
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022690
--- Comment #1 from Pavel Zhukov pzhu...@redhat.com ---
Spec URL: http://landgraf.fedorapeople.org/packages/gela-asis/gela-asis.spec
SRPM URL:
http://landgraf.fedorapeople.org/packages/gela-asis/gela-asis-0.3-7.fc19.src.rpm
koji:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021721
--- Comment #18 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl ---
Would it be sufficient for this release to just remove this file in the spec?
Yes, if the the package is not degraded without it, removing it is the way go.
If so, what
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283
--- Comment #10 from Mosaab Alzoubi moc...@hotmail.com ---
Spec URL: http://ojuba.org/oji/SPECS/gnulib.spec
SRPM URL:
http://ojuba.org/oji/SRPMS/gnulib-20131022.git25fb29a-2.oji.fc19.src.rpm
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018393
Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=910793
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|CLOSED |ON_QA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018393
Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
--
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018393
--- Comment #5 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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022644
--- Comment #6 from Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Remi Collet from comment #5)
Small notice, I don't think it make sense to have a %{github_version}.
For GitHub packages, I like to see all the GitHub information at
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022735
Gerard Ryan ger...@ryan.lt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283
--- Comment #11 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl ---
(In reply to Mosaab Alzoubi from comment #9)
RE-review ::
1. Done
2. Done
The URL should be the content of Source0, not in the comments.
Use:
Source0:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021164
Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020014
Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |
Referenced
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021244
Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |
Referenced
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021199
Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |
Referenced
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020014
Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283
--- Comment #12 from Mosaab Alzoubi moc...@hotmail.com ---
2. Done
10. Done
13. Done
14. Done
15. Done
16. Done
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/174
Removed
Building Uploading
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283
--- Comment #13 from Mosaab Alzoubi moc...@hotmail.com ---
Spec URL: http://ojuba.org/oji/SPECS/gnulib.spec
SRPM URL:
http://ojuba.org/oji/SRPMS/gnulib-20131022.git25fb29a-3.oji.fc19.src.rpm
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023210
Bug ID: 1023210
Summary: Review Request: irawadi-user - Python Library for
manage system user in Linux
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283
--- Comment #14 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de ---
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #8)
(In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #7)
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #5)
It is nice to be
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283
Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebl...@redhat.com,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021164
--- Comment #6 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl ---
(In reply to Brendan Jones from comment #5)
Rpmlint output is OK except this:
general-purpose-preprocessor-debuginfo.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long
C This package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021164
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022255
--- Comment #15 from Nils Philippsen nphil...@redhat.com ---
This is rpm-build-4.11.1-3.fc19.x86_64
--
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=1015958
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018905
--- Comment #21 from Shawn Wells swe...@redhat.com ---
(In reply to Jon Ciesla from comment #20)
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Left swells of InitialCC, not in FAS, can be added later.
Hi Jon, my FAS username is shawndwells
Thanks!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023210
Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cicku...@gmail.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020839
--- Comment #13 from Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com ---
branislav: I think it's fine to skip the man pages, and the other two steps
would be nice but probably don't block the review. We should probably try and
find you a sponsor.
--
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023210
--- Comment #2 from Rino Rondan villadalm...@gmail.com ---
Description:
Python Library for manage system user and group in Linux.
With Irawadi-user, the developer can add users, update
the password to users and delete users account
--
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023210
--- Comment #3 from Rino Rondan villadalm...@gmail.com ---
I renamed the package.
Spec URL: http://villadalmine.fedorapeople.org/python-irawadi-user.spec
SRPM URL:
http://villadalmine.fedorapeople.org/python-irawadi-user-0.1-2.fc19.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008772
Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1003057
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022407
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=954074
Scott Talbert s...@techie.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=954074
Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Review Request: remotebox - |Review Request:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022255
--- Comment #16 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com ---
Hmm...Weird. I think there might have a bug. I get the same result like Nils,
but I think RPM can handle this well.
@Michael, what is it about that filing a bug for rpmbuild?
--
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1013037
--- Comment #6 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com ---
I moved it back to -devel.
Spec URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/otf2.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/otf2-1.2.1-4.fc19.src.rpm
* Thu Oct 24 2013
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877694
Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cicku...@gmail.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008772
Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023210
Yohan Graterol yohangratero...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023210
Yohan Graterol yohangratero...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015958
--- Comment #5 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com ---
I've made all the changes you've suggested.
The headers are required for hosts to be able to query plugin contents, albeit
without the requirement of the binary in the main
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1013037
Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023210
--- Comment #5 from Rino Rondan villadalm...@gmail.com ---
- Added package_name variable to modify Source0,prep
- Removed commented lined on spec
- Removed macro of python binary
- Removed * from python_sitelib
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283
--- Comment #16 from Eric Blake ebl...@redhat.com ---
Although I personally use gnulib in lots of projects, I have never once wanted
to use a distro's packaging of it. On the other hand, I know that some people
do want it in the distro, if
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022584
--- Comment #2 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl ---
0. Not critizing, just trying to understand. Why are those packages split out
from qpid-cpp?
1. Those %globals at the top are probably not required, unless you're
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283
Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cicku...@gmail.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023210
Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023210
Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Review Request: |Review Request:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023210
--- Comment #7 from Rino Rondan villadalm...@gmail.com ---
Spec URL: http://villadalmine.fedorapeople.org/python-irawadi-user.spec
SRPM URL:
http://villadalmine.fedorapeople.org/python-irawadi-user-0.1-4.fc19.src.rpm
--
You are receiving
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023210
Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023210
--- Comment #9 from Yohan Graterol yohangratero...@gmail.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015958
--- Comment #6 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl ---
1. Please also replace 20661444 in Release by %{commit}.
2. the comment about snapshot.sh is not needed
3. the description...
5. Use 'make %{?_smp_mflags} ...'...
6.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023210
--- Comment #10 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com ---
hey yohan, I'm seeing that you are upstream and packager, probably you're
helping rino with this package. You is being your mentor?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023210
--- Comment #11 from Rino Rondan villadalm...@gmail.com ---
Spec URL: http://villadalmine.fedorapeople.org/python-irawadi-user.spec
SRPM URL:
http://villadalmine.fedorapeople.org/python-irawadi-user-0.1-5.fc19.src.rpm
--
You are receiving
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023210
--- Comment #12 from Yohan Graterol yohangratero...@gmail.com ---
Hi Eduardo,
Yes, I'm being the mentor of Rino... For the correct packaging.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008772
--- Comment #5 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com ---
Would you like to add BR of fox-utils so you can test the
GUI(https://github.com/signal11/hidapi/blob/master/README.txt#L148)?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023210
Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023210
Yohan Graterol yohangratero...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023210
Yohan Graterol yohangratero...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023210
--- Comment #15 from Yohan Graterol yohangratero...@gmail.com ---
PACKAGE APPROVED
--
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=1023210
--- Comment #16 from Yohan Graterol yohangratero...@gmail.com ---
Rino,
Follow the process from:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Add_Package_to_Source_Code_Management_.28SCM.29_system_and_Set_Owner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023210
--- Comment #17 from Rino Rondan villadalm...@gmail.com ---
New Package SCM Request
===
Package Name: python-irawadi-user
Short Description: Python Library for manage system user in Linux
Owners: villaldamine yograterol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=954074
--- Comment #7 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com ---
I have concerns about using /usr/share or /usr/libexec for the location of *.pl
files.
I don't want to use /usr/lib for storing *.pl, quoted from hierarchy:
/usr/libexec includes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022644
Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
101 - 179 of 179 matches
Mail list logo
