https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1306945
--- Comment #7 from jiri vanek ---
Ok. I will wait for new package and reveiew again (or watch diff:) )
--
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 com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305496
--- Comment #19 from jiri vanek ---
(In reply to Tomas Repik from comment #17)
> --- SPECS/old/HdrHistogram.spec 2016-03-03 15:58:04.925801810 +0100
> +++ SPECS/HdrHistogram.spec 2016-03-07 12:37:58.916005527 +0100
> @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1314865
Tom "spot" Callaway changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tcall...@redhat.com
B
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1126308
--- Comment #7 from Daiki Ueno ---
It would be great if we get Christopher's attention soon, but I guess it's not
likely, as all his packages have been orphaned last month because of no
response (see devel list).
Perhaps we should close this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315486
Greg Bailey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gbai...@lxpro.com
--- Comment #2 from G
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315022
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System ---
xfpanel-switch-1.0.3-3.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-858811aa83
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315022
Mukundan Ragavan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|POST|CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315020
--- Comment #9 from Mukundan Ragavan ---
Spec URL:
https://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/nmrglue/python-nmrglue.spec
SRPM URL:
https://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/nmrglue/python-nmrglue-0.5-3.fc23.src.rpm
--
You are receivi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315020
Mukundan Ragavan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #8 from Mukun
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315495
--- Comment #2 from Scott Williams ---
Updated to fix Source0.
New spec file:
http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/vwbusguy/ibus-coptic/ibus-table-coptic.git/tree/ibus-table-coptic.spec
New SRPM:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1057909
Przemysław Palacz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pprze...@gmail.com
--- Comment #5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315495
--- Comment #1 from John Dulaney ---
rpmlint ./ibus-table-coptic-0.1-4.fc25.src.rpm
ibus-table-coptic.src: E: unknown-key RSA#3940b9a9 (MD5
ibus-table-coptic.src:8: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
ibus-table-coptic.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315495
Scott Williams changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
Referenced
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315495
Scott Williams changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Review Request: |Review Request:
|ibu
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315495
Bug ID: 1315495
Summary: Review Request: ibus-table-coptic -
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
Severity: medium
Priority: medium
Assigne
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1311752
--- Comment #8 from Dmitry Mikhirev ---
> 1. Type=simple means that there's no synchronization wrt. to the daemon being
> ready to serve requests. So it's harder to write something that uses the
> daemon because it is necessary to poll for i
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1298665
--- Comment #19 from Neil Horman ---
alex, I appreciate you looking into it, but I don't believe that the legal dual
licensing is going to be acceptable for fedora packaging (or Red Hat for that
matter). I'm going to ask Red Hat Legal to clar
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315486
--- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
fale's scratch build of nudoku-0.2.4-1.src.rpm for f25 completed
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13264233
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315486
Bug ID: 1315486
Summary: Review Request: nudoku - Ncurses based sudoku game
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
Severity: medium
Priority: medium
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1311752
--- Comment #7 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ---
The review does not depend on this, but the spec file is a bit iffy.
It's something that would be nice to fix at some point.
1. Type=simple means that there's no synchronization wrt. to the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315021
--- Comment #7 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ---
It's "SHOULD" not "should" ;) It means "must unless there's a good reason not
to".
--
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=1315021
--- Comment #6 from Dmitry Mikhirev ---
> Change python-devel to python2-devel, or maybe python3-devel? Would it work
> with python3?
It wants python 2.7 only. Changed to python2-devel.
> Note: if you package for F23- (F24+ is fine as is),
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315193
Björn "besser82" Esser changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
CC|packag
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315193
Antonio Trande changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #11 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1311752
--- Comment #6 from Dmitry Mikhirev ---
Done.
Spec URL:
http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/bizdelnick/neuro/vrpn.git/plain/vrpn.spec?id=b012cca025b63dddbd4b80e4378293522d2efd2a
SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/res
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315193
--- Comment #10 from Björn "besser82" Esser ---
Updated package. Should address all mentioned issues…
Urls:
Spec URL: https://besser82.fedorapeople.org/review/cmake3.spec
SRPM URL:
https://besser82.fedorapeople.org/review/cmake3-3.5.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315307
Björn "besser82" Esser changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|package-review@lists.fedora |
|project.or
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315307
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System ---
libarchive3-3.1.2-1.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-a82c466e38
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315307
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|POST|MODIFIED
--
You are receiving
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315307
--- Comment #7 from Björn "besser82" Esser ---
Package is built, buildroot-override is tagged long enough to have it available
until it hits the release-repo.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You ar
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290523
--- Comment #14 from Jon Ciesla ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/oci-systemd-hook
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310796
--- Comment #18 from Jon Ciesla ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/python-etcd
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about change
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315307
--- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/libarchive3
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310796
--- Comment #17 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ---
I forgot to add: you can append "#/%{name}-%{commit}.tar.gz" or similar to
Source0, and spectool -g will then use this part after the slash as the file
name.
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310128
--- Comment #3 from Jan Pokorný ---
For the moment, just a tiny nit up to your consideration:
rpmlint for zpaq-libs.x86_64:
W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libzpaq.so.0.1 /lib64/libm.so.6
Possible solution per
https://fedoraproj
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310796
--- Comment #16 from Matthew Barnes ---
Thanks!
--
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=1315319
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Petr
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310796
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315319
--- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
ppisar's scratch build of perl-ExtUtils-HasCompiler-0.012-1.fc25.src.rpm for
f25 completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13262026
--
You are receiving this mail becaus
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310796
--- Comment #14 from Matthew Barnes ---
Realized I forgot to add LICENSE.txt to the python3 package. Fixed now.
--
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=1306945
--- Comment #6 from Tomas Repik ---
(In reply to jiri vanek from comment #1)
> Build fails on f24
I'm gonna aim for f24 of course, so yes I'm gonna work on this.
(In reply to jiri vanek from comment #5)
> So teo questions - why the patch?
It
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310796
--- Comment #13 from Matthew Barnes ---
Well the Summary is exactly the author's own description.
see https://github.com/jplana/python-etcd
and https://pypi.python.org/pypi/python-etcd
I added the word "library" for clarification, and tr
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1263938
Petr Šabata changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
Blocks|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315319
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1313477
--- Comment #6 from Ken Dreyer ---
After talking with François, I realized that the RPM build process does
generate a couple .pyo and .pyc files when python{2,3}-devel is in the
buildroot. So we should BuildRequire those packages and ship the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208381
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System ---
gmavenplus-plugin-1.5-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-b73e30bc77
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208381
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--
You are receiving
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315307
Björn "besser82" Esser changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
--- Comment #5 from Bjö
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1313477
--- Comment #5 from Ken Dreyer ---
Someone pointed out to me that we need to ship ansible.cfg in this package or
the ceph-common role will not work properly. Here's a new release with that
change.
* Mon Mar 07 2016 Ken Dreyer - 1.0.1-3
- Shi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315307
Antonio Trande changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from A
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315307
--- Comment #3 from Björn "besser82" Esser ---
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #2)
> Package Review
> ==
>
> Legend:
> [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
> [ ] = Manual review needed
>
>
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315193
--- Comment #9 from Antonio Trande ---
(In reply to Björn "besser82" Esser from comment #8)
> (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #6)
> > Package Review
> > ==
> >
> > Issues:
> > ===
>
>
> > - Fix this line, please:
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310796
--- Comment #12 from Colin Walters ---
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #11)
> BR:git-core is less costly than BR:git. But in fact I don't think you need
> the BR and -Sgit at all, things usually work with plain patch.
I
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1313477
--- Comment #4 from Ken Dreyer ---
Exact changes in git:
https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/ktdreyer/public_git/ceph-ansible.git/commit/?id=373d2ea65ecd4dc7518f21d055c160a5711ff3b6
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list fo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1313477
--- Comment #3 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
ktdreyer's scratch build of ceph-ansible-1.0.1-2.fc25.src.rpm for rawhide
completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13260946
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1313477
Ken Dreyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(ktdreyer@ktdreyer |
|.com)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315370
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||1314937
Depends On|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315319
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||1315370
Referenced Bugs:
https:/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315370
Bug ID: 1315370
Summary: Review Request: perl-List-SomeUtils - Provide the
stuff missing in List::Util
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315193
--- Comment #8 from Björn "besser82" Esser ---
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #6)
> Package Review
> ==
>
> Issues:
> ===
> - Have you considered this comment?
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290199#
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315307
--- Comment #2 from Antonio Trande ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- bsdtar3 and bsdcpio3 must require main package, all
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315193
--- Comment #7 from Antonio Trande ---
>- This package contains emacs related files. I guess we can apply emacs
> packaging guidelines (Case 2).
Ignore this point; all changes already done.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are o
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279085
--- Comment #10 from Raphael Groner ---
Hmm, new guideline modification may apply for the optionally pregenerated test
data (maybe source1) and could need also the sources in srpm. Have to
investigate.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270525
--- Comment #4 from Raphael Groner ---
Hmm, new guideline modification may apply for the pregenerated test data
(source1) and could need also the sources in srpm. Have to investigate.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Use_of_
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305496
--- Comment #18 from Jon Ciesla ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/HdrHistogram
--
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=1208381
--- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/gmavenplus-plugin
--
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=1315022
--- Comment #15 from Jon Ciesla ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/xfpanel-switch
--
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=1315193
--- Comment #6 from Antonio Trande ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Have you considered this comment?
https://bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315319
Bug ID: 1315319
Summary: Review Request: perl-ExtUtils-HasCompiler - Check for
the presence of a compiler
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=982204
Jens Petersen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||peter...@redhat.com
Assignee|p
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1304996
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System ---
ghc-cmark-0.5.1-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-bd2c5e8b05
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list f
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1304996
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--
You are receiving
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1304996
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System ---
ghc-cmark-0.5.1-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-6f0af32e54
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list f
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264288
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--
You are receiving
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264288
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System ---
ghc-filemanip-0.3.6.3-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-3d3e7dbde8
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264288
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System ---
ghc-filemanip-0.3.6.3-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-42d5c716fc
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315307
Antonio Trande changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nob...@fed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1314865
Jan Pokorný changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||182235 (FE-Legal)
--- Comment #1 from J
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305496
--- Comment #17 from Tomas Repik ---
--- SPECS/old/HdrHistogram.spec2016-03-03 15:58:04.925801810 +0100
+++ SPECS/HdrHistogram.spec2016-03-07 12:37:58.916005527 +0100
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
Name: HdrHistogram
Version: 2.1.8
-
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310128
Jan Pokorný changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1314865
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315307
--- Comment #1 from Björn "besser82" Esser ---
Scratch-build (epel6):
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13259190
--
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=1315307
Björn "besser82" Esser changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|Package Review |Package Review
Vers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315193
Björn "besser82" Esser changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On||1315307 (epel6-libarchive3)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315307
Bug ID: 1315307
Summary: Review Request: libarchive3 - A library for handling
streaming archive formats
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305496
--- Comment #16 from jiri vanek ---
Yah, you are right with flags.
About the c#15 - was there some change against the original one i approved?
If so, please post diff!
I short time I should be able to sponsor you.
--
You are receiving this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1306945
--- Comment #5 from jiri vanek ---
So teo questions - why the patch, and why not the launchers?
Nice pacakge anyway. Thanx!
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1306945
--- Comment #4 from jiri vanek ---
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=1306945
--- Comment #3 from jiri vanek ---
I maight be missing something - but it seems that it needs some aditional
library to work fine with jdk8. I fiale dto verify this:
eg in logs:
2016-03-07 12:10:58,036 WARN [Uns] Failed to load Java8 impl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1306945
--- Comment #2 from jiri vanek ---
The benchmark subproject contains again few powerful launchers. I would say
worthy to pack...
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about change
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305496
--- Comment #15 from Tomas Repik ---
Spec URL: https://trepik.fedorapeople.org/HdrHistogram/HdrHistogram.spec
SRPM URL:
https://trepik.fedorapeople.org/HdrHistogram/HdrHistogram-2.1.8-1.fc23.src.rpm
* Mon Mar 07 2016 Tomas Repik - 2.1.8-1
-
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543151
Peter Lemenkov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(lemen...@gmail.co |
|m)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305496
--- Comment #14 from Tomas Repik ---
(In reply to jiri vanek from comment #12)
> Not sure how your other requests, but this oen was missing fedora-review=?
> If your other requestsd are missing it, set it for your own good.
I think the reviewe
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305496
Tomas Repik changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(tre...@redhat.com |
|)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315193
--- Comment #5 from Björn "besser82" Esser ---
epel6 would need libarchive >= 3.0.0 in addition, too. I'm going to prepare a
compat-package for this, too…
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315193
Björn "besser82" Esser changed:
What|Removed |Added
Alias||epel-cmake3
--
You are rece
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1306945
--- Comment #1 from jiri vanek ---
Hello! Build fails on f24 - I did not investigate, but is your target really
only rawhide? If not, then you shoudl probably investigate.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for th
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315020
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Underwood ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Summary:
1) Fix source URL
2) Add %check
3) Don't bundle tests
4)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1314995
--- Comment #10 from Raphael Groner ---
For interested users, upstream discussion with some useful links for more
information:
https://developer.pidgin.im/ticket/15597
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bu
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315193
Björn "besser82" Esser changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On||1315097
--- Comment #4 from
1 - 100 of 111 matches
Mail list logo
