https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1005518
Parag AN(पराग) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Blocks|177841 (FE-N
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1231460
--- Comment #4 from Eduardo Mayorga ---
The link to the latest SRPM is dead.
--
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=1231460
Eduardo Mayorga changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nob...@fe
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1242723
Tim Orling changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #5 from Tim Orli
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1251500
--- Comment #12 from Jason Tibbitts ---
Packaging this as a static library is completely fine. Obviously not as good a
solution as a shared library were that possible, but not really an issue. If
you check the FPC meeting logs you'll see exp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1242723
Orion Poplawski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197505
Ross Lagerwall changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1251238
Seth Jennings changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjenn...@redhat.com
--- Comment #6 fr
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091100
Nick Bebout changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #13 from Nick B
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1244522
Julien Enselme changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #5 from Juli
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1251238
Adam Miller changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |
--- Comment #5 from Adam Miller ---
A
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246790
--- Comment #16 from Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group)
---
> However I can't parse the abbreviation of this mdp package.
"Mot de Passe"
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDP
-> https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mot_de_passe
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1221459
--- Comment #12 from Dave Johansen ---
(In reply to Marcin Haba from comment #10)
> 1) add to Spec Requires and BuildRequires tags appropriate subversion
> dependecies (>= 1.8.13-7)
I don't think that this is worth the trouble. Plus, it would
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1216279
--- Comment #8 from Dave Johansen ---
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #7)
> - Exist some hidden directories in the -doc package.
> Please check if they can be removed.
I removed them and notified upstream.
> - Source0 link is not
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091100
Jared Smith changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RELEASE_PENDING
Flags|fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1202064
Eduardo Mayorga changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||e...@mayorgalinux.com
--- Comment #
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107127
Parag AN(पराग) changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||panem...@gmail.com
Blocks|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1051738
Eduardo Echeverria changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246790
--- Comment #15 from Raphael Groner ---
What I do not understand: Why is it tried to use this package review to clear
issues about another package (with the intention to name it equally) when it's
not obviously packaged yet and there's not eve
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=970393
Itamar Reis Peixoto changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ita...@ispbrasil.com.br,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1009752
Parag AN(पराग) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1009754
Parag AN(पराग) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Blocks|177841 (FE-N
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1231564
Parag AN(पराग) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1126100
--- Comment #14 from José Matos ---
Sure. :-)
I will be away next week so take your time. :-)
--
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=1181927
Parag AN(पराग) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Blocks|177841 (FE-N
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961642
Parag AN(पराग) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1053110
Parag AN(पराग) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Blocks|177841 (FE-N
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1009754
--- Comment #3 from Parag AN(पराग) ---
I am going to close this and any other review by this submitter based on
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews#Submitter_not_responding
--
You are receiving this mail because
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246790
--- Comment #14 from Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group)
---
Conflicts are within the FPC's domain, not FESCo's:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts#Other_Uses_of_Conflicts:
--
You are receiving this mail becaus
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246790
--- Comment #13 from Nils Philippsen ---
Chiming in because Raphael brought up the naming conflict on #fedora-devel, and
neither he nor I found guidelines that give a clear-cut solution. This is the
closest I found that touches the issue:
htt
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246790
--- Comment #12 from Raphael Groner ---
Suggestion: Use markdown-presentation-mdp
You can add to your package a Conflicts: mdp to avoid installation of both
packages and get rid of a potential binary conflict.
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246790
--- Comment #11 from Raphael Groner ---
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #10)
> My issue is that could this package be renamed after consulting with
> upstream?
Simple answer with two letters only and for the last time: No.
--
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1251940
--- Comment #9 from Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group)
---
Yes, that's what
| Config(fedora-21-x86_64)
and
| chrootPath='/var/lib/mock/fedora-21-x86_64
indicated. But fedora-review pointing at a build.log that didn't con
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1231564
--- Comment #4 from Piotr Popieluch ---
Update to 0.14.3
Spec URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/elasticdump.spec
SRPM URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/elasticdump-0.14.3-1.fc22.src.rpm
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246790
--- Comment #10 from Christopher Meng ---
My issue is that could this package be renamed after consulting with upstream?
My mdp package means (M)ark(D)own (P)resentation, and it's pretty useful and
awesome with 2000+ stars on github. However
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246790
--- Comment #9 from Raphael Groner ---
Christopher, could you please be more specific about your issue? Sorry but I
fail to understand.
--
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=1251940
--- Comment #8 from Christopher Meng ---
(In reply to Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) from comment #7)
> Obviously. Still comment 1 and comment 4 raised my interest. ;)
I thought that Nikos reviewed this with f21 chroot.
ra
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1251940
--- Comment #7 from Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group)
---
Obviously. Still comment 1 and comment 4 raised my interest. ;)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified ab
38 matches
Mail list logo
