https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040459
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040459
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #19 from Fed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040459
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System ---
NetworkManager-iodine-0.0.4-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora
20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/NetworkManager-iodine-0.0.4-2.fc20
--
You are receiving this mail because
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040459
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--
You are receiving
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040459
Jon Ciesla changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
--
You are receiving this m
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040459
--- Comment #17 from Jon Ciesla ---
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=1040459
--- Comment #16 from Dan Fruehauf ---
Umn, did I forget something? I didn't get any notification about the new
pakcage SCM request and it's been a while already...
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Y
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040459
Dan Fruehauf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #15 from Dan F
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040459
--- Comment #14 from Michael Scherer ---
Yep, you can now.
--
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=1040459
--- Comment #13 from Dan Fruehauf ---
I'm a bit confused. Can I go with fedora-cvs? and proceed with the SCM request
then?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to t
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040459
Michael Scherer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--
You are receivin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040459
Jon Ciesla changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-cvs? |
--
You are receiving this mail because
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040459
--- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla ---
See prior comment unsetting flag.
--
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=1040459
--- Comment #11 from Dan Fruehauf ---
(In reply to Michael Scherer from comment #8)
> I guess i would prefer to not have them split if this only bring complexity,
> but since this is done on every others on, and that can be fixed later.
> Let'
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040459
Dan Fruehauf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #10 from Dan F
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040459
--- Comment #9 from Dan Fruehauf ---
(In reply to Michael Scherer from comment #8)
> I guess i would prefer to not have them split if this only bring complexity,
> but since this is done on every others on, and that can be fixed later.
> Let's
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040459
--- Comment #8 from Michael Scherer ---
I guess i would prefer to not have them split if this only bring complexity,
but since this is done on every others on, and that can be fixed later. Let's
say the package is approved.
--
You are receiv
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040459
--- Comment #7 from Dan Fruehauf ---
(In reply to Michael Scherer from comment #6)
> Package Review
> ==
>
> Legend:
> [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
> [ ] = Manual review needed
>
> - I am not
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040459
Michael Scherer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #6 from Michae
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040459
Michael Scherer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||m...@zarb.org
Assignee|nob.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040459
--- Comment #5 from Dan Fruehauf ---
New spec and SRPM:
SRPM URL:
http://danfruehauf.fedorapeople.org/NetworkManager-iodine-0.0.4-2.fc19.src.rpm
Spec URL: http://danfruehauf.fedorapeople.org/NetworkManager-iodine.spec
Additional patch (submitt
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040459
--- Comment #4 from Dan Fruehauf ---
(In reply to Simon Farnsworth from comment #3)
> Down to a couple of nitpick level comments, which are as likely to be proof
> of my ignorance as anything else:
>
> * Patch0's comment - could it include a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040459
--- Comment #3 from Simon Farnsworth ---
Down to a couple of nitpick level comments, which are as likely to be proof of
my ignorance as anything else:
* Patch0's comment - could it include a link to your upstream submission as
described in
h
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040459
--- Comment #2 from Dan Fruehauf ---
Simon, thanks for that. I should have ran fedora-review by myself.
Fixed the above problems and submitted the patch that's included with the RPM
to the upstream maintainer. This should look a bit better:
S
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040459
Simon Farnsworth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||si...@farnz.org.uk
--- Comment #1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040459
Dan Fruehauf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||895929
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugz
26 matches
Mail list logo
