https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018626
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|libfaketime-0.9.6-1.fc21
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018626
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|libfaketime-0.9.6-1.fc20
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018626
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018626
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RELEASE_PENDING |ON_QA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018626
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
libfaketime-0.9.6-1.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libfaketime-0.9.6-1.el7
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018626
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018626
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
libfaketime-0.9.6-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libfaketime-0.9.6-1.fc21
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018626
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
libfaketime-0.9.6-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libfaketime-0.9.6-1.fc20
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018626
Paul Wouters pwout...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|RELEASE_PENDING
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018626
Niranjan Mallapadi Raghavender mnira...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018626
Paul Wouters pwout...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018626
--- Comment #13 from Paul Wouters pwout...@redhat.com ---
Christopher: I prefer using attr as that makes it independent of the build
system settings or the upstream make install permissions. It's a guarantee the
permissions will be correct.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018626
Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
--
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018626
--- Comment #14 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com ---
Git done (by process-git-requests).
--
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=1018626
Patrick Uiterwijk puiterw...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(puiterwijk@redhat |fedora-review+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018626
--- Comment #11 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com ---
Do we need %attr(0755,root,root) ?
Please chmod +x the libraries in %install section if their permissions are
incorrect.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018626
Paul Wouters pwout...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||puiterw...@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018626
Patrick Uiterwijk puiterw...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018626
--- Comment #8 from Patrick Uiterwijk puiterw...@redhat.com ---
Is there any progress on this?
--
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=1018626
--- Comment #7 from Patrick Uiterwijk puiterw...@redhat.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= ISSUES
1. Please add
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018626
--- Comment #6 from Patrick Uiterwijk puiterw...@redhat.com ---
As this bug has been reopened, I will review this again.
Great to see that people work together! :-)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018626
Paul Wouters pwout...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018626
Susi Lehtola susi.leht...@iki.fi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018626
Paul Wouters pwout...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018626
--- Comment #1 from Patrick Uiterwijk puiterw...@redhat.com ---
Two primary notices:
1. You don't need the %ifarch x86_64, %{_lib} (and as a result %{_libdir}) are
already lib on i686, and lib64 on x86_64.
2. This package compiles on x86_64
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018626
--- Comment #3 from Paul Wouters pwout...@redhat.com ---
odd
+ CFLAGS='-O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions
-fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -grecord-gcc-switches -m32
-march=x86-64 -mtune=generic -mfpmath=sse
26 matches
Mail list logo
