https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028521
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|perl-DBD-ODBC-1.45-1.el6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028521
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|perl-DBD-ODBC-1.45-1.fc19
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028521
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028521
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|perl-DBD-ODBC-1.45-1.fc18
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028521
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
perl-DBD-ODBC-1.45-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-DBD-ODBC-1.45-1.el6
--
You are receiving this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028521
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
perl-DBD-ODBC-1.45-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-DBD-ODBC-1.45-1.fc19
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028521
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028521
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
perl-DBD-ODBC-1.45-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-DBD-ODBC-1.45-1.fc20
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028521
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
perl-DBD-ODBC-1.45-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-DBD-ODBC-1.45-1.fc18
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028521
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028521
--- Comment #10 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=1028521
Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
--
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028521
Jan Holcapek holca...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028521
--- Comment #7 from Jan Holcapek holca...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Lubomir Rintel from comment #6)
0.) Please split a long line:
-%doc Changes FAQ if_you_are_taking_over_this_code.txt README README.adabas
README.af README.hpux
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028521
Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028521
Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lkund...@v3.sk
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028521
--- Comment #6 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk ---
* Package named correctly
* Latest stable version used
* Package licensed correctly
* License tag correct
* SPEC file mostly clean and legible (see below)
* Correct compiler flags used
*
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028521
Jan Holcapek holca...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||177841
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028521
Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cicku...@gmail.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028521
--- Comment #3 from Jan Holcapek holca...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #2)
SPEC URL is not the same one in SRPM. Dunno why you used a repoforge SPEC
link.
My bad:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028521
--- Comment #4 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Jan Holcapek from comment #3)
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #2)
SPEC URL is not the same one in SRPM. Dunno why you used a repoforge SPEC
link.
My
21 matches
Mail list logo