https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1970050
--- Comment #1 from Ben Beasley ---
*** Bug 1970049 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
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 compon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1970049
Ben Beasley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1970049
Ben Beasley changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||c...@musicinmybrain.net
Summar
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1956841
--- Comment #35 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-2c282e3208 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing
--ad
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1968655
Mohan Boddu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Review Request: |Review Request:
|Headse
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1956841
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #34 from Fed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1967726
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #6 from Fedo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1966552
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #6 from Fedo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1967778
Major Hayden 🤠changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=196
Major Hayden 🤠changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1967776
Major Hayden 🤠changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1967775
Major Hayden 🤠changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1966722
Major Hayden 🤠changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1968655
Carl George 🤠changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Ca
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1967774
--- Comment #18 from Gwyn Ciesla ---
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-fabric
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1970073
--- Comment #5 from Major Hayden 🤠---
I went back and re-read Mohamed's comments from 1953789, and it might make
sense to package all of these small components and then use python-azure-sdk as
the metapackage that ties them all together. I do
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1967774
--- Comment #17 from Major Hayden 🤠---
(In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #16)
> Looks good! This was a slog, but I think it turned out well!
Thanks for your patience and continued help on this one, Ben! 🎉
--
You are receiving this mai
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1967774
Ben Beasley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
|needinf
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1967774
Ben Beasley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(mhay...@redhat.co |
|m)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1970073
--- Comment #4 from Major Hayden 🤠---
(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #1)
> 1) If the pypi archive does not contain a license file, you should ask
> upstream to ship one with the pypi archives. If you nicely point out to
> upstreams
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1970073
--- Comment #3 from Major Hayden 🤠---
(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #2)
> Note: I am not 100% sure if adding the Provides for the old package name in
> *all* successor packages is the right thing to do. The Obsoletes should
> defi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1970073
--- Comment #2 from Fabio Valentini ---
Note: I am not 100% sure if adding the Provides for the old package name in
*all* successor packages is the right thing to do. The Obsoletes should
definetly be in all successors to make sure the upgrade
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1970073
Fabio Valentini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||decatho...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1970073
Major Hayden 🤠changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pikachu.2...@gmail.com
Blo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1970073
Major Hayden 🤠changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||1953789
Referenced Bugs:
https://
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1970073
Bug ID: 1970073
Summary: Review Request: python-azure-core - Azure Core shared
client library for Python
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1956841
--- Comment #33 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-2c282e3208 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-2c282e3208
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1970049
Bug ID: 1970049
Summary: Review Request: -
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Component: Package Review
Seve
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1956841
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--- Comment #32 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1970050
Bug ID: 1970050
Summary: Review Request: cri-o: unretire cri-o package so it
can be built as a module again
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1967954
--- Comment #8 from Rich Megginson ---
Ok. rpmlint looks good.
--
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=1935379
--- Comment #4 from Raphael Groner ---
> date should be the date you took the snapshot not the date of the commit
In another review I was told to use date of commit is better. But agreed, a
snapshot from 2017 obviously is very old.
--
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1968655
--- Comment #5 from Mohan Boddu ---
I think I might have accidentally closed vim without saving while making some
changes. Updated spec and srpm are:
SPEC: https://mohanboddu.fedorapeople.org/headsetcontrol.spec
SRPM: https://mohanboddu.fedor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1956841
--- Comment #31 from Gwyn Ciesla ---
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-podman
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1967726
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|POST|MODIFIED
--- Comment #5 from F
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1966552
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|POST|MODIFIED
--- Comment #5 from F
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1967954
Sergei Petrosian changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(pcah...@redhat.co |
|m)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1969737
--- Comment #1 from Olivier Lemasle ---
This package built on koji:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=69675840
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about chan
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1969737
Bug ID: 1969737
Summary: Review Request: rust-wasmtime-debug - Debug utils for
WebAsssembly code in Cranelift
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Compo
39 matches
Mail list logo
