https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020468
--- Comment #5 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski ---
Fixed all issues:
Spec URL: http://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/ucpp/ucpp.spec
SRPM URL: http://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/ucpp/ucpp-1.3.4-2.fc19.src.rpm
--
You are receiving th
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026052
--- Comment #2 from Keiran Smith ---
Mock Build.log
Mock Version: 1.1.33
ENTER do(['bash', '--login', '-c', 'rpmbuild -bs --target x86_64 --nodeps
builddir/build/SPECS/rubygem-github-markdown.spec'], False,
'/var/lib/mock/fedora-19-x86_64/roo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026051
Keiran Smith changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026052
--- Comment #1 from Keiran Smith ---
*** Bug 1026051 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review m
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026052
Bug ID: 1026052
Summary: Review Request: rubygem-github-markdown - rubygem to
process github markdown
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
S
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026051
Bug ID: 1026051
Summary: Review Request: -
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
Severity: medium
Priority: medium
Assignee: nob...@fedorap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018492
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|vcsh-1.20130909-3.fc19 |vcsh-1.20130909-3.fc18
--- Com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975318
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System ---
libodb-sqlite-2.2.3-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libodb-sqlite-2.2.3-1.fc20
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975317
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System ---
libodb-qt-2.2.1-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libodb-qt-2.2.1-1.fc20
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975316
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System ---
libodb-pgsql-2.2.0-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libodb-pgsql-2.2.0-1.fc20
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018492
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975315
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System ---
libodb-mysql-2.2.0-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libodb-mysql-2.2.0-1.fc20
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016370
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975313
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System ---
libodb-boost-2.2.1-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libodb-boost-2.2.1-1.fc20
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025972
Christopher Meng changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cicku...@gmail.com
--- Comment #3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026042
Conscious User changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||consciousu...@gmail.com
--- Comment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025977
--- Comment #6 from Michele Baldessari ---
So I went through an iteration of fedora-review -b 1025977 and fixed
a couple of things. New files:
Spec URL: http://acksyn.org/files/rpms/captcp/captcp.spec
SRPM URL: http://acksyn.org/files/rpms/ca
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026042
--- Comment #2 from Michele Baldessari ---
Holy Batman! That was fast ;)
(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #1)
> As a quickstart, run "fedora-review -b 1026042" and examine its various
> results.
Ha! Good to know, I was a bit concer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026042
--- Comment #1 from Michael Schwendt ---
As a quickstart, run "fedora-review -b 1026042" and examine its various
results.
> Summary:Linux Twitter client designed for multiple columns
> of multiple accounts
Linux, eh? ;-)
> desktop-file-in
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989847
František Dvořák changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||val...@civ.zcu.cz
--- Comment #4 fr
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975318
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System ---
libodb-sqlite-2.2.3-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libodb-sqlite-2.2.3-1.el6
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on th
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975318
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System ---
libodb-sqlite-2.2.3-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libodb-sqlite-2.2.3-1.el5
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on th
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975316
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System ---
libodb-qt-2.2.1-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libodb-qt-2.2.1-1.el6
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC lis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975317
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System ---
libodb-pgsql-2.2.0-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libodb-pgsql-2.2.0-1.el6
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975317
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System ---
libodb-pgsql-2.2.0-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libodb-pgsql-2.2.0-1.el5
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026042
Michele Baldessari changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
Referen
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975316
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System ---
libodb-qt-2.2.1-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libodb-qt-2.2.1-1.el5
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC lis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026042
Bug ID: 1026042
Summary: Review Request: polly - Linux Twitter client designed
for multiple columns of multiple accounts
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015326
Ken Dreyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #4 from Ken Drey
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020404
Paul Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025977
--- Comment #5 from Michele Baldessari ---
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #3)
> (In reply to Michele Baldessari from comment #2)
> > Hi Antonio,
> >
> > thanks for letting me know. I've uploaded fixed spec and srpm:
> > Spec URL: ht
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020404
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System ---
perl-Archive-Peek-0.35-2.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=1025977
--- Comment #4 from Antonio Trande ---
Also, some slashes are redundant:
%{buildroot}/%{_bindir}/captcp is wrong.
%{buildroot}%{_bindir}/captcp is fine.
%{buildroot}/%{_mandir}/man8/captcp.8 is wrong.
%{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man8/captcp.8 is
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1024136
--- Comment #30 from Germán Racca ---
(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #29)
> > My logic is: Gedit requires Python 3 (because 'rpm -q --requires gedit'
> > says 'python(abi) = 3.3'), and this plugin requires Gedit.
>
> This is okay,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025977
--- Comment #3 from Antonio Trande ---
(In reply to Michele Baldessari from comment #2)
> Hi Antonio,
>
> thanks for letting me know. I've uploaded fixed spec and srpm:
> Spec URL: http://acksyn.org/files/rpms/captcp/captcp.spec
> SRPM URL: h
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025100
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #7 from Fedo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025977
--- Comment #2 from Michele Baldessari ---
Hi Antonio,
thanks for letting me know. I've uploaded fixed spec and srpm:
Spec URL: http://acksyn.org/files/rpms/captcp/captcp.spec
SRPM URL: http://acksyn.org/files/rpms/captcp/captcp-1.6-2.fc20.sr
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015326
Mario Blättermann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 fro
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975315
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System ---
libodb-mysql-2.2.0-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libodb-mysql-2.2.0-1.el6
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975315
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System ---
libodb-mysql-2.2.0-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libodb-mysql-2.2.0-1.el5
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975313
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System ---
libodb-boost-2.2.1-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libodb-boost-2.2.1-1.el6
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975313
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System ---
libodb-boost-2.2.1-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libodb-boost-2.2.1-1.el5
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1024136
--- Comment #29 from Michael Schwendt ---
> My logic is: Gedit requires Python 3 (because 'rpm -q --requires gedit'
> says 'python(abi) = 3.3'), and this plugin requires Gedit.
This is okay, because _currently_ it works. Currently, package ge
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025977
Antonio Trande changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anto.tra...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1024136
--- Comment #28 from Germán Racca ---
(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #27)
> It's only a misunderstanding. If there hasn't been an update, the original
> Spec/SRPM links are still valid. After plenty of comments in the ticket,
> tha
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025984
Bug ID: 1025984
Summary: Review Request: rubygem-redis-namespace - Namespaces
Redis commands
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
Severity:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018004
Ken Dreyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #6 from Ken Drey
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018004
--- Comment #5 from Ken Dreyer ---
(In reply to Mamoru TASAKA from comment #4)
> * Well, one minor point is that %exclude %doc can simply be %exclude.
Thanks, this was a typo. I'll adjust it before importing.
> * Also, you can simply add %ex
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018004
Mamoru TASAKA changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Ma
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025977
Michele Baldessari changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
Referen
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025977
Bug ID: 1025977
Summary: Review Request: captcp - TCP Analyzer for PCAP Files
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
Severity: medium
Assignee: nob...@f
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015326
--- Comment #2 from Ken Dreyer ---
Thank you very much Mario for the review! Would you mind setting the "+" flag
for fedora-review?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025972
--- Comment #2 from Jose Pedro Oliveira ---
BTW, the specfile hack
---
%if 0%{?rhel} == 6
sed -i 's|_pkg_min_version=0.25|_pkg_min_version=0.23|g' configure
%endif
will be dropped for the next upstream release [1].
Re
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025972
--- Comment #1 from Jose Pedro Oliveira ---
Additional notes:
* this package is a new requirement of ZeroMQ 4 (and CZMQ 2).
* target distros: Fedora >= 18 and EPEL6
* additional maintainers are welcome
--
You are receiving this mail becau
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025972
Bug ID: 1025972
Summary: Review Request: libsodium - Portable NaCl-based crypto
library
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
Severity: mediu
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025368
Ralph Bean changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #5 from Ralph Be
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004231
--- Comment #9 from Brendan Jones ---
PS. I will correct the license file and raise the lv2- prefix on the packaging
list.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
__
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004231
Brendan Jones changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #8 from Brend
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015326
Mario Blättermann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1024136
--- Comment #27 from Michael Schwendt ---
It's only a misunderstanding. If there hasn't been an update, the original
Spec/SRPM links are still valid. After plenty of comments in the ticket, that's
not so obvious anymore, so reposting them does
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019428
--- Comment #15 from Mario Blättermann ---
No package builds yet...?
--
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=1013669
Mario Blättermann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nob...@
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018568
--- Comment #5 from Antonio Trande ---
(In reply to Mario Blättermann from comment #4)
> The mentioned exit() call might be somewhat critical. But it is not up to
> you to fix, please ask the upstream developers for a solution. Likewise for
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1024136
--- Comment #26 from Germán Racca ---
(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #25)
> An up-to-date pair of "Spec URL:" and "SRPM URL:" lines in the review ticket
> makes it convenient to run "fedora-review -b 1024136", *and* it becomes
> ob
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=895541
Antonio Trande changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anto.tra...@gmail.com
--- Comment #46
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025368
Mario Blättermann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 fro
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1024136
--- Comment #25 from Michael Schwendt ---
An up-to-date pair of "Spec URL:" and "SRPM URL:" lines in the review ticket
makes it convenient to run "fedora-review -b 1024136", *and* it becomes obvious
where to find the latest package among a gro
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023714
--- Comment #9 from Alec Leamas ---
I don't really get it. It builds for me in mock on two different machines, and
thus it should for you. You are using the rawhide buildroot i. e., mock -r
fedora-rawhide-i386 ... ?
lpf is not available in fc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1005800
gil cattaneo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|1025904 (solr) |
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.r
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1005796
gil cattaneo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|1025904 (solr) |
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.r
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025904
gil cattaneo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On|1005782 (uimaj), 1005792, |
|1005796, 1005800
71 matches
Mail list logo
