https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020942
--- Comment #19 from Dan Horák ---
(In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #17)
> Ok, a couple of questions/differences about your spec...
>
> 1. You move the bakefiles but Dan's spec mentions that they're not supported
> and just deletes them
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=951827
--- Comment #7 from Christopher Meng ---
(In reply to Elad Alfassa from comment #6)
> Oh shit, totally forgot about this. Thanks for reminding me.
>
> Unfortunately I'm a bit under the weather this weekend, so this will either
> have to wait t
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063140
Christopher Meng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||1062854
Referenced Bugs:
https:/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060651
--- Comment #3 from Mamoru TASAKA ---
Well, as this is prelease I thought using fake pre-3 version is better for fake
Provides, however now I write full EVR provides and it should be okay.
http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/gem-re
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062808
Christopher Meng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Whiteboard||NotReady
--- Comment #2 from Chris
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062911
--- Comment #4 from Christopher Meng ---
I just asked this question in packaging about udev rules:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/2014-February/010013.html
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062911
--- Comment #3 from Volker Fröhlich ---
Ad EL5: You got me the wrong way around: I meant you don't have to make them
conditional:
"clean section" instead of "if el5; then clean section; endif"
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036901
--- Comment #4 from Mamoru TASAKA ---
Sorry for delay.
1 issue and 1 request
1 issue:
* Duplicate files
- %{gem_instdir}/bin/org-ruby is inclued in both
main and -doc subpackages.
1 request
* Version upgrade
- Well, it seems that 0.9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062314
Mikolaj Izdebski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #5 from Mi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062314
--- Comment #4 from Mikolaj Izdebski ---
Thank you, I'll fix changelog at import.
--
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=1063140
Bug ID: 1063140
Summary: Review Request: tofrodos - Converts text files between
MSDOS and Unix file formats
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063048
Christopher Meng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
S
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063042
Christopher Meng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
S
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063047
Christopher Meng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
S
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063119
Christopher Meng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #1 from Ch
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062786
--- Comment #2 from Adam Goode ---
Having some troubles running fedora-review on my centos box. May have to file
some bugs there.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about chang
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063119
Bug ID: 1063119
Summary: EPEL7 Branch Request: advancecomp
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
Severity: medium
Priority: medium
Assignee:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060443
--- Comment #8 from Christopher Meng ---
(In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #7)
> ./configure with Fedora default flags throws up error.
>
> http://paste.fedoraproject.org/75748/92002850/
>
> I am looking into this and based on the i
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060443
--- Comment #7 from Mukundan Ragavan ---
./configure with Fedora default flags throws up error.
http://paste.fedoraproject.org/75748/92002850/
I am looking into this and based on the interactions on #fedora-devel, I have
also contacted the a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063045
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=948359
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|python-volatility-2.3.1-1.f |python-volatility-2.3.1-2.f
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=948359
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063043
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||1063044
Referenced Bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063044
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On||1063043
--- Comment #1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063045
--- Comment #5 from Sandro Mani ---
Spec URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/gnome-pkg-tools.spec
SRPM URL:
http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/gnome-pkg-tools-0.19.3-3.fc21.src.rpm
%changelog
* Mon Feb 10 2014 Sandro Mani - 0.19.3-3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063045
--- Comment #4 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ---
(In reply to Sandro Mani from comment #3)
> As far as /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Debian is concerned, that is owned by
> debhelper. So I don't think owning it again is necessary.
Oh, I miss
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063045
--- Comment #3 from Sandro Mani ---
*blush* first time I managed to forget %description ...
As far as /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Debian is concerned, that is owned by
debhelper. So I don't think owning it again is necessary.
--
You are rec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063044
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063045
--- Comment #2 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ---
Issues:
===
- Package should own %{perl_vendorlib}/*
(according to Guidelines/Perl). Otherwise /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Debian
and subdirectories will be unowned.
- %description is
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063045
--- Comment #1 from Sandro Mani ---
Spec URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/gnome-pkg-tools.spec
SRPM URL:
http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/gnome-pkg-tools-0.19.3-2.fc21.src.rpm
%changelog
* Mon Feb 10 2014 Sandro Mani - 0.19.3-2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823661
Christopher Meng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) |
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzill
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1047647
--- Comment #8 from Ben Reedy ---
Thanks for the help Denis.
New URL for the SRPM:
http://breed808.com/rpmfusion-submission/libchardet-1.0.2-4.fc20.src.rpm
Michael, I'm not sure how to get %find_lang to work in this situation. As far
as I kn
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530473
Christopher Meng changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cicku...@gmail.com
Resolution
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823661
Christopher Meng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839260
Jens Petersen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|POST
Flags|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063045
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=687875
Christopher Meng changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||linux.n@gmail.com
Fl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060817
--- Comment #6 from Richard Shaw ---
Well I've gone back and forth with the developer and of course from his point
of view he doesn't have a problem with bundled libraries since he makes sure it
builds for not just Linux, but BSD, MacOS, etc..
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1054565
Jens Petersen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #4 from Jens
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062942
--- Comment #4 from Christopher Meng ---
1. It's a good habit to move BuildRequires above Requires:
2. No need to use %{__make}, just make.
3. Remove these:
rm -rf %{buildroot}
find %{buildroot} -depth -type d -exec rmdir {} 2>/dev/null ';
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062942
--- Comment #3 from Fabio Alessandro Locati ---
Hi Antonio :).
Thank you for your inputs. I've had removed the BuildRoot and added the doc
files that are available.
Here you can find the current version of the files:
- Spec URL: http://data.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063053
Christopher Meng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
S
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063050
Christopher Meng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
S
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063054
Christopher Meng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
S
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063039
Christopher Meng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
S
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063040
Christopher Meng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
S
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063038
Christopher Meng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
S
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063055
Christopher Meng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
S
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063060
Christopher Meng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
S
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063052
Christopher Meng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
--- Commen
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063052
Christopher Meng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Review Request: middleman - |Review Request:
|A
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063043
--- Comment #2 from Sandro Mani ---
dpkg-checkbuilddeps exists but does not work, i.e. you get
$ dpkg-checkbuilddeps
dpkg-checkbuilddeps: Unmet build dependencies: build-essential:native
For dpkg-checkbuilddeps to work, you need a dpkg data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063043
Christopher Meng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=987738
Christopher Meng changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manisan...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063075
Christopher Meng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1053222
Lokesh Mandvekar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--
You are receiving thi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1013258
Lokesh Mandvekar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060817
Richard Shaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #5 from Richard S
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989850
Michael Cronenworth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #11 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989850
--- Comment #10 from Erik van Pienbroek ---
You can ignore that, it's a copy/paste issue in my review template which I
forgot to remove
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and componen
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062911
--- Comment #2 from Denis Fateyev ---
(In reply to Volker Fröhlich from comment #1)
> Did you leave out README.loconet and README.selectrix on purpose?
I found them not really informative, don't remember why.. I can add them back
though.
> Y
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063075
Bug ID: 1063075
Summary: Review Request: dput - Debian package upload tool
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
Severity: medium
Priority: medium
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989850
--- Comment #9 from Michael Cronenworth ---
(In reply to Erik van Pienbroek from comment #8)
> The BuildRequires: mingw32-filesystem mingw64-filesystem should be versioned
> (to >= 95).
> Please fix this before importing this package in Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989847
Michael Cronenworth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #9 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866265
--- Comment #21 from Denis Arnaud ---
Spec URL: http://denisarnaud.fedorapeople.org/opentrep/opentrep.spec
SRPM URL:
http://denisarnaud.fedorapeople.org/opentrep/opentrep-0.6.0-1.fc20.src.rpm
Successful Koji build (for all the architectures):
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=875087
--- Comment #23 from Paul Cochrane ---
(In reply to Paul Cochrane from comment #22)
> (In reply to Orion Poplawski from comment #21)
> > - cluster_status (and perhaps even gen_nodes_file) is too generic. Please
> > add a pbs (or pbs_) prefix.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060443
--- Comment #6 from Kevin Fenzi ---
1. great.
2. Ok, now that we have verbose build info we can see that it's not using our
default flags. ;(
You can look at the macros directly in the redhat-rpm-macros package, or on any
fedora machine:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063060
Bug ID: 1063060
Summary: Review Request: websocket - Universal Ruby library to
handle WebSocket protocol
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063058
--- Comment #1 from Nitesh Narayan Lal ---
Spec URL:
http://niteshnarayan.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/rubygem-sprockets-sass-1.0.2.spec
SRPM URL:
http://niteshnarayan.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/rubygem-sprockets-sass-1.0.2-1.fc19.src.rpm
--
You are r
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063058
Bug ID: 1063058
Summary: Review Request: sprockets-sass - sprockets-sass` fixes
all of this by creating a Sass::Importer that is
Sprockets aware.
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063057
Bug ID: 1063057
Summary: Review Request:sprockets-helpers - Asset path helpers
for Sprockets 2.x applications
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063056
Bug ID: 1063056
Summary: Review Request: rb-kqueue - A Ruby wrapper for BSD's
kqueue, using FFI
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
Severit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063055
Bug ID: 1063055
Summary: Review Request: rb-kqueue - A Ruby wrapper for BSD's
kqueue, using FFI
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
Severit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063054
Bug ID: 1063054
Summary: Review Request: rb-fsevent - FSEvents API with Signals
catching (without RubyCocoa)
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063053
Bug ID: 1063053
Summary: Review Request: middleman-sprockets - Sprockets
support for Middleman
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
Severity
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062942
Antonio Trande changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anto.tra...@gmail.com
--- Comment #2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063052
Bug ID: 1063052
Summary: Review Request: middleman - A static site generator
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
Severity: medium
Assignee: nob...@fe
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063050
Bug ID: 1063050
Summary: Review Request: http_parser - This gem provides a high
quality http parser library
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063048
Bug ID: 1063048
Summary: Review Request: eventmachine_httpserver -
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
Severity: medium
Assignee: nob...@fedoraproje
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063047
Bug ID: 1063047
Summary: Review Request: em-websocket-client - A WebSocket
client implementation for EventMachine
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063043
Bug ID: 1063043
Summary: Review Request: cdbs - Common build system for Debian
packages
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
Severity: mediu
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063045
Bug ID: 1063045
Summary: Review Request: gnome-pkg-tools - Tools for the Debian
GNOME Packaging Team
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
Se
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063044
Bug ID: 1063044
Summary: Review Request: dh-autoreconf - debhelper add-on to
call autoreconf and clean up after the build
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Packag
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063042
Bug ID: 1063042
Summary: Review Request: em-websocket - EventMachine based
WebSocket server
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
Severity: m
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063040
Bug ID: 1063040
Summary: Review Request: em-socksify - Transparent proxy
support for any EventMachine protocol
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063039
Bug ID: 1063039
Summary: Review Request:em-http-request -EventMachine based,
async HTTP Request client
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063038
Bug ID: 1063038
Summary: Review Request: cookiejar - he Ruby CookieJar is a
library to help manage client-side cookies in pure
Ruby
Product: Fedora
Version: rawh
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062920
--- Comment #1 from Nitesh Narayan Lal ---
Spec URL: http://niteshnarayan.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/rubygem-amq-protocol.spec
SRPM URL:
http://niteshnarayan.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/rubygem-amq-protocol-1.9.2-1.fc19.src.rpm
--
You are receiving t
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020942
--- Comment #18 from Jeremy Newton ---
(In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #17)
> Ok, a couple of questions/differences about your spec...
>
> 1. You move the bakefiles but Dan's spec mentions that they're not supported
> and just deletes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062911
Volker Fröhlich changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||volke...@gmx.at
--- Comment #1 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060804
--- Comment #7 from Michael Schwendt ---
Well, whose idea was it to add that? ;) There is no comment above that section
in the spec file. So, take a look at the configure script and figure out what
it does if that option is set. If it only a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060817
--- Comment #4 from Volker Fröhlich ---
I'll review the licenses after you un-bundled xmlrpc++.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST i
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062808
--- Comment #1 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
1) Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (se
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1054565
Sébastien Willmann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 fr
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851680
Erik van Pienbroek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 fro
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989847
Erik van Pienbroek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 fro
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989850
Erik van Pienbroek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 fro
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1054565
Sébastien Willmann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062808
Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062808
Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pa...@hubbitus.info
1 - 100 of 114 matches
Mail list logo
