https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015263
pjp pj.pan...@yahoo.co.in changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1114187
Bug ID: 1114187
Summary: Review Request: python-shadowsocks - A fast tunnel
proxy that help you get through firewalls
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=948
--- Comment #5 from Dan Vrátil dvra...@redhat.com ---
Spec URL: http://dvratil.fedorapeople.org/kf5/review/kf5-kio.spec
SRPM URL:
http://dvratil.fedorapeople.org/kf5/review/kf5-kio-4.100.0-2.fc20.src.rpm
- fixed licenses
- added %%config
-
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078327
--- Comment #13 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org ---
Very sorry Ralph for the delay :(
Thanks for the fixes!
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078327
--- Comment #14 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org ---
You just need to add this:
Provides: bundled(bootstrap)
Provides: bundled(jquery)
See:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1112434
Denis Fateyev de...@fateyev.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de...@fateyev.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078327
Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1089494
--- Comment #7 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org ---
Thanks for the review, and sorry for the delay!
Spec URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/weak-map/nodejs-weak-map.spec
SRPM URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1086217
Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1086245
Bug 1086245 depends on bug 1086231, which changed state.
Bug 1086231 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-jsonparse - Pure-js JSON streaming
parser for node.js
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1086231
What|Removed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096450
Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1086231
Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100885
Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100885
Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1112864
--- Comment #12 from Sandro Mani manisan...@gmail.com ---
Hmpf, didn't notice that my comment wasn't submitted due to mid-air
collission... Anyway, the comment was:
elpa-openmpi.x86_64: W: executable-stack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100885
--- Comment #1 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org ---
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=1100885
Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074128
--- Comment #7 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org ---
Bundling exception was approved. Please add the appropriate Provides.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1094015
--- Comment #5 from Cheng-Chia Tseng pswo10...@gmail.com ---
OK, I have corrected those issues you mentioned and re-uploaded to my
fedorapeople space. Release tag number is updated too.
Spec URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070398
Bug 1070398 depends on bug 1070357, which changed state.
Bug 1070357 Summary: New upstream release of python-netaddr
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070357
What|Removed |Added
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1094015
--- Comment #6 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com ---
A quick look into given spec link
issues 1, 2 fixed
issue 3 fixed but you need to add changelog entry with every update and write
lines there about what has changed from last release.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1089494
--- Comment #8 from Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1089494
Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1089494
Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108765
--- Comment #7 from Milan Bouchet-Valat nalimi...@club.fr ---
I've made a SRPM with the two patches merged into one (since they are highly
related). It works for me with Julia:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1083701
Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1114210
Bug ID: 1114210
Summary: Review Request: sispmctl - Control Gembird SIS-PM
programmable power outlet strips
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1114210
Dan Horák d...@danny.cz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1114212
Bug ID: 1114212
Summary: Review Request: glite-lb-server - gLite Logging and
Bookkeeping server
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1114215
Bug ID: 1114215
Summary: Review Request: glite-lb-ws-test - Tests and usage
examples of LB Web Service interface
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062911
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067003
--- Comment #4 from Denis Fateyev de...@fateyev.com ---
Note: this package (`perl-Time-ParseDate`) replaces obsoleted package
`perl-Time-modules`. The reviewer should consider
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Renaming_Process
Finally,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109390
--- Comment #4 from Milan Bouchet-Valat nalimi...@club.fr ---
Bump!
--
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=1114210
Dan Horák d...@danny.cz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067003
--- Comment #5 from Xavier Bachelot xav...@bachelot.org ---
The package looks good, there are only a couple mostly cosmetic issues :
- blank line at top of spec.
- it would be clearer to not mix Requires and BuildRequires. Move the only
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1112434
--- Comment #4 from Denis Fateyev de...@fateyev.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1112434
--- Comment #5 from Jeff Backus jeff.bac...@gmail.com ---
Hi Denis,
Thanks for reviewing!
Hmm. I apologize, please clarify re: which commit I should be referencing. I am
referencing commit f984731, which is what shows up at:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067003
--- Comment #6 from Denis Fateyev de...@fateyev.com ---
Fixed 1 and 2. As for `%defattr`, I'm also planning to package for RHEL5, and
kept it since it doesn't break anything on newer versions.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1112434
--- Comment #6 from Denis Fateyev de...@fateyev.com ---
I mean, you created the release tarball:
https://github.com/jsbackus/brd/archive/1.0.tar.gz
So you can surely use this path in source instead of that based on commit hash.
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1112434
Mukundan Ragavan nonamed...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109390
--- Comment #5 from Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me ---
(In reply to Milan Bouchet-Valat from comment #3)
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #1)
Per your strategy, will there come llvm3.4, llvm3.5 in the future? Because
LLVM API is
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1113912
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1106364
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108395
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823344
--- Comment #14 from Julian C. Dunn jd...@aquezada.com ---
Here is the updated spec and SRPM for Ohai 7.0.4, patched to use ffi-yajl. I'm
comfortable using the patch because it's the same one going into future
versions of Ohai and is already in
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1094015
--- Comment #7 from Cheng-Chia Tseng pswo10...@gmail.com ---
OK, I finally figured it out. Changlog about this release is added.
As issue 4, I would like to want this package included in epel6 or 7 too.
Sorry that I don't understand the
46 matches
Mail list logo