https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079613
David Dick changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079484
Christopher Meng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079613
--- Comment #1 from David Dick ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-so
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039315
--- Comment #27 from MartinKG ---
Spec URL:
http://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/nuvolaplayer.spec
SRPM URL:
http://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/nuvolaplayer-2.3.1-2.fc20.src.rpm
%changelog
* Sat Mar 22 2014 Martin Gansser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1073955
Jan Grulich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1076976
--- Comment #1 from František Dvořák ---
New version with some corrections (LICENSE in the main package, dependencies):
Spec URL:
http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/rubygem-settingslogic-2.0.9-1b/rubygem-settingslogic.spec
SRPM URL:
http://scien
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020839
Branislav Blaskovic changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||branis...@blaskovic.sk
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=979166
Christopher Meng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nob...@fe
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039315
--- Comment #28 from MartinKG ---
Spec URL:
http://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/nuvolaplayer.spec
SRPM URL:
http://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/nuvolaplayer-2.3.1-3.fc20.src.rpm
%changelog
* Sat Mar 22 2014 Martin Gansser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074268
Emmanuel Seyman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074267
Emmanuel Seyman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #2 from Emm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1075774
--- Comment #4 from Colin Walters ---
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #3)
>
> Generic:
> [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
> Note: Mock build failed
> See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#r
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1076863
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System ---
cmockery2-1.3.6-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/cmockery2-1.3.6-1.fc20
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1076863
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--
You are receiving
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1076863
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System ---
cmockery2-1.3.6-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/cmockery2-1.3.6-1.fc19
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1076863
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System ---
cmockery2-1.3.6-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/cmockery2-1.3.6-1.el6
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC li
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1076863
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System ---
cmockery2-1.3.6-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/cmockery2-1.3.6-1.el5
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC li
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079661
Bug ID: 1079661
Summary: Review Request: cinnamon-menus - A menu system for the
Cinnamon project
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
Severi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079661
Wolfgang Ulbrich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|chat-to...@raveit.de
Fl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079663
Bug ID: 1079663
Summary: Review Request: libusbmuxd - Library for USB
multiplexing daemon for interface to Apple's iOS
devices
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079663
Antonio Trande changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nob...@fed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079661
--- Comment #1 from Wolfgang Ulbrich ---
1. missing isa tag in -devel subpackage
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
2. [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1073012
gil cattaneo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||1010003 (bigdata-review)
Referenced B
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069934
--- Comment #2 from Orion Poplawski ---
* Sat Mar 22 2014 Orion Poplawski - 0.2-2
- Capitalize summary/description
- Add upstream license file
Spec URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/python-pytest-flakes.spec
SRPM URL:
http://www.co
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069988
--- Comment #13 from Sven Nierlein ---
6. ok, it gone.
9. also gone.
16. i removed the AutoReqProv:no and replaced all shiped modules with requires.
There are a only modules missing:
perl(Catalyst::Plugin::Compress)
perl(Catalyst::Plugin::Cu
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058019
--- Comment #5 from Michael Schwendt ---
> Should I add one by hand, or is it OK as it is?
A missing soname is a reoccuring topic in the package review queue. The first
question here would be "Which soname would you add, if upstream didn't su
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079661
Wolfgang Ulbrich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058019
--- Comment #6 from Milan Bouchet-Valat ---
So you conclusion would be?... ;-)
--
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=1074242
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #11 from Fed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074482
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #8 from Fedo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829763
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|drupal6-link-2.11-1.fc19|drupal6-link-2.11-1.el6
--- Com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829763
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|drupal6-link-2.11-1.el6 |drupal6-link-2.11-1.el5
--- Com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1077956
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #10 from Fed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079661
leigh scott changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #3 from leigh s
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074651
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #6 from Fedo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977638
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1076192
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #11 from Fed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066672
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #16 from Fed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066633
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #12 from Fed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977638
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|python-espeak-0.5-6.fc19|python-espeak-0.5-6.fc20
--- Co
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069988
--- Comment #14 from Ralf Corsepius ---
(In reply to Sven Nierlein from comment #13)
> How can we proceed here to get those modules packaged for fedora?
I'd recommend to start submitting for review, the perl-modules packages you are
missing.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079613
--- Comment #2 from Ralf Corsepius ---
(In reply to David Dick from comment #1)
> Line 50 is ok
>
> %{perl_vendorlib}/*
>
> but you could change it to
>
> %{perl_vendorlib}/Data/*
>
> to avoid shared package ownerships
No. Perl-modules pa
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079613
--- Comment #3 from Ralf Corsepius ---
Updated package:
Spec URL: http://corsepiu.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-Data-Perl.spec
SRPM URL:
http://corsepiu.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-Data-Perl-0.002007-2.fc20.src.rpm
--
You are receiving
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079613
David Dick changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from David
44 matches
Mail list logo