https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020942
--- Comment #9 from Michael Schwendt ---
Originally, "compat-" packages cannot be used as BuildRequires, because they
don't ship a corresponding -devel subpackage but only the runtime libs. For
compatibility with 3rd party software. Over time,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=968604
--- Comment #4 from Jamie Nguyen ---
https://github.com/SamuraiJack/JooseX-SimpleRequest/issues/1#issuecomment-32117709
SamuraiJack wrote:
> Yes, you can use any of these licenses.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC li
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1048460
--- Comment #2 from Lubomir Rintel ---
Ping?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
pack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1024779
Michael Schwendt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Review Request: |Review Request:
|r
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988648
--- Comment #1 from Michael Schwendt ---
Spec URL: http://cicku.me/libunity.spec
SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/libunity-6.12.0-1.fc20.src.rpm
Just a brief look at the spec:
> Summary:Unity instrumenting and integration library
Somewhat
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=434698
Michal Ambroz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||re...@seznam.cz
Flags|fedor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1051665
--- Comment #2 from MartinKG ---
@rahul thank you for taking the review.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771252
leigh scott changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #157 from leigh
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=773470
leigh scott changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #14 from leigh s
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=985440
leigh scott changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #9 from leigh sc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859469
leigh scott changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #14 from leigh s
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=986532
leigh scott changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #7 from leigh sc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=986530
leigh scott changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #9 from leigh sc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=986567
leigh scott changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #12 from leigh s
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=986691
leigh scott changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #9 from leigh sc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1000590
leigh scott changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #6 from leigh s
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1000728
leigh scott changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #6 from leigh s
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1011439
leigh scott changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #11 from leigh
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=878612
leigh scott changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #19 from leigh s
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1048460
--- Comment #3 from Christopher Meng ---
1. qt5-qtwayland should be in 5.2.0, right?
2. %exclude %{_libdir}/libHawaiiCore.so, why?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about cha
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=970956
Christopher Meng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(mmcki...@umich.ed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1050744
--- Comment #6 from nucleo ---
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #5)
> Please feedback the results later here.
>
> Thanks.
You consider license file problem as blocker?
We never get feedback from Linphone developers, they never rep
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=987738
František Dvořák changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
--
You are receiving this mail be
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1050744
Christopher Meng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||182235 (FE-Legal)
--- Comment #7 f
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1050744
--- Comment #8 from nucleo ---
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #7)
> Not a blocker. But I'm afraid there might have some questionable things.
>
> Have you tried linphone-developers list?
No, because they require signing contributo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1048621
--- Comment #11 from Volker Fröhlich ---
(In reply to Orion Poplawski from comment #10)
> Okay, but let's fix this then:
>
> warning: bogus date in %changelog: Mon Jan 5 2014 Volker Fröhlich
> - 2.2.1-1.1
> warning: bogus date in %changelo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1051128
Thomas Sailer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t.sai...@alumni.ethz.ch
Fl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049547
František Dvořák changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049548
František Dvořák changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1051836
Sandro Mani changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016887
Sandro Mani changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1051678
Sandro Mani changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039335
Sandro Mani changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1051771
--- Comment #2 from MartinKG ---
Spec URL: http://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/vdr-tvguide.spec
SRPM URL:
http://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/vdr-tvguide-1.0.0-4.d0651a4.fc20.src.rpm
%changelog
* Sun Jan 12 2014 Martin Gan
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020942
--- Comment #10 from Jeremy Newton ---
Fair enough, thanks for your input Michael. Though I would like to point out
that some combat packages currently do have devel subpackages; I assume this is
what you meant by deviating from the naming sch
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1047787
Mamoru TASAKA changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Ma
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=984605
Antonio Trande changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nob...@fedo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=887542
Shawn Iwinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nob...@fedor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=887542
--- Comment #3 from Shawn Iwinski ---
Created attachment 848953
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=848953&action=edit
phpcompatinfo.log
phpcompatinfo version 2.26.0
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC l
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=887542
--- Comment #4 from Shawn Iwinski ---
Created attachment 848954
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=848954&action=edit
fedora-review.txt
Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13
Command line :/usr/bin/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=910237
Shawn Iwinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=887542
Shawn Iwinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Sha
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=910237
--- Comment #3 from Shawn Iwinski ---
Created attachment 848955
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=848955&action=edit
phpcompatinfo.log
phpcompatinfo version 2.26.0
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC l
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=910237
--- Comment #4 from Shawn Iwinski ---
Created attachment 848956
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=848956&action=edit
fedora-review.txt
Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13
Command line :/usr/bin/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1048460
--- Comment #4 from Lubomir Rintel ---
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #3)
> 1. qt5-qtwayland should be in 5.2.0, right?
I'm not sure I understand the question. I'll try to enlighten the situation as
much as I can: They haven't don
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=910237
Shawn Iwinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Sha
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021080
Shawn Iwinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021080
--- Comment #3 from Shawn Iwinski ---
Created attachment 848957
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=848957&action=edit
phpcompatinfo.log
phpcompatinfo version 2.26.0
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021080
--- Comment #4 from Shawn Iwinski ---
Created attachment 848958
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=848958&action=edit
fedora-review.txt
Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13
Command line :/usr/bin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021080
Shawn Iwinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Sh
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=887542
Remi Collet changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #6 from Remi Col
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=910237
Remi Collet changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #6 from Remi Col
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1051665
--- Comment #3 from MartinKG ---
Spec URL:
http://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/vdr-skinnopacity.spec
SRPM URL:
http://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/vdr-skinnopacity-1.0.3-3.0b29805.fc20.src.rpm
%changelog
* Sun Jan 12 2014
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021080
Remi Collet changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #6 from Remi Co
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1051901
Bug ID: 1051901
Summary: Review Request: rubygem-rgen - Ruby Modelling and
Generator Framework
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
Severity
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1051901
Sam Kottler changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||1051613
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugz
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049547
František Dvořák changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016887
--- Comment #1 from Sandro Mani ---
Looks good! Two comments:
- licensecheck lists MIT, BSD and ISC. So I'd suggest License should read:
# ares_getopt.c ares_getopt.h are BSD (3 clause)
# bitncmp.c inet_net_pton.c inet_ntop.c are ISC
# rest i
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049548
--- Comment #1 from František Dvořák ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
- using obsolete m4 macros in upstream
(https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/w
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=968604
--- Comment #5 from Tom Hughes ---
So I think the license tag in the spec should be OR not AND then?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and compone
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016887
--- Comment #2 from František Dvořák ---
(In reply to Sandro Mani from comment #1)
> - licensecheck lists MIT, BSD and ISC.
Thanks, license fixed and comments added.
>
> - (Curiosity) Why are you generating and shipping the def file?
Some
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=209894
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System ---
python-eyed3-0.7.4-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable
repository.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016887
Sandro Mani changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Sand
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1051836
--- Comment #2 from Sandro Mani ---
The SRPM url points to the noarch rpm. Could you upload the SRPM?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and compo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=984605
--- Comment #12 from Antonio Trande ---
Initial comments:
- Some 'install' commands are not performed with -p option to preserve
timestamps
- I don't see some optimization flag, they are requested by the guidelines
--
You are receiving this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1051836
--- Comment #3 from František Dvořák ---
Oh, I'm sorry. Fixed URLs:
Spec URL: http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/mingw-flac-1.3.0-1/mingw-flac.spec
SRPM URL:
http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/mingw-flac-1.3.0-1/mingw-flac-1.3.0-1.fc21.src.rpm
--
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016887
--- Comment #4 from František Dvořák ---
(In reply to Sandro Mani from comment #3)
> Concerning the def files, according to [1] one can also generate them from
> the dll using pexports. But up to you ;) Approved!
>
Nice! I'll looks better wi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049548
--- Comment #2 from Sandro Mani ---
Spec URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-libmng.spec
SRPM URL:
http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-libmng-2.0.2-2.fc21.src.rpm
* Sun Jan 12 2014 Sandro Mani - 2.0.2-2
- Delete pre-built
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049547
Sandro Mani changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #2 from Sandro
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049550
František Dvořák changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=997679
Michael Schwendt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(dewachter.jonatha
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=968604
--- Comment #6 from Jamie Nguyen ---
(In reply to Tom Hughes from comment #5)
> So I think the license tag in the spec should be OR not AND then?
Oops, my bad.
Spec URL:
http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/nodeunit/nodejs-joosex-simplerequest.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1051836
Sandro Mani changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Sand
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049548
František Dvořák changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=964437
--- Comment #6 from Michael Schwendt ---
Has anything been tried meanwhile?
Has the Fedora MinGW SIG been contacted yet?
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MinGW
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049548
Sandro Mani changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #4 from Sandro
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=968604
--- Comment #7 from Tom Hughes ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-sou
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=968604
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from Tom Hu
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=968604
--- Comment #9 from Jamie Nguyen ---
Thanks Tom!
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
p
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1051836
--- Comment #5 from František Dvořák ---
Thanks! Patches got into upstream (by Miroslav Lichvar), so I'll add there
comments:
#
https://git.xiph.org/?p=flac.git;a=commitdiff;h=606fdfcaece19d3e05434bde57c289102a369069
Patch1: flac-meta
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=968604
Jamie Nguyen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #10 from Jamie
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1051915
Bug ID: 1051915
Summary: Review Request: silvia - SImple Library for the
Verification and Issuance of Attributes
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1051915
Patrick Uiterwijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|pwout...@redhat.com
Fl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1051915
--- Comment #2 from Patrick Uiterwijk ---
Description:
SImple Library for the Verification and Issuance of Attributes of IRMA cards
(irmacard.org)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always not
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1051916
Bug ID: 1051916
Summary: Review Request: vdr-tvscraper - A plugin to scrapping
movie and series info for the Video Disc Recorder
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1051665
MartinKG changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version||anto.tra...@gmail.com
--
You are receivin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1045556
Haïkel Guémar changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||karlthe...@gmail.com
--- Comment #3 f
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1048493
Denis Fateyev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ke...@scrye.com
Assignee|nob.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1051665
MartinKG changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|anto.tra...@gmail.com |
--
You are receiving this mail because:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1051920
Bug ID: 1051920
Summary: Review Request: udisks2-lvm - LVM DBus add-on for
udisks
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
Assignee: nob...@fedo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1051920
--- Comment #1 from Patrick Uiterwijk ---
Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6394058
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this produc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1051920
Jamie Nguyen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamieli...@fedoraproject.or
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1051920
--- Comment #2 from Jamie Nguyen ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= ISSUES =
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1051920
--- Comment #3 from Jamie Nguyen ---
Additional issues:
In the %summary "add-on" is the spelling used, while in the description it is
"addon". I would go for the hyphenated spelling.
Also, the sentence is missing an "an" and doesn't need a c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1051920
Jamie Nguyen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--
You are receiving this ma
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1051920
--- Comment #4 from Patrick Uiterwijk ---
* Sun Jan 12 2014 Patrick Uiterwijk -
0.1-0.2.590423bgit
- Add a comment on the licensing breakdown
- Fix spelling in the description
Spec URL: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org//udisks2-lvm.spec
SR
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039335
--- Comment #1 from Sandro Mani ---
Two problems:
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/glite-lb-logger
[!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other pack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1051920
Jamie Nguyen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Jam
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1051920
Patrick Uiterwijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #6 from P
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1051681
Ville Skyttä changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #2 from Ville
1 - 100 of 139 matches
Mail list logo