https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065758
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065758
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065758
Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
--
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065758
--- Comment #23 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=1065758
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065758
--- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
omniORBpy-3.7-5.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/omniORBpy-3.7-5.fc20
--
You are receiving this mail because:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065758
Sandro Mani manisan...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065758
Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065758
--- Comment #20 from Sandro Mani manisan...@gmail.com ---
Spec URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/omniORBpy.spec
SRPM URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/omniORBpy-3.7-5.fc21.src.rpm
* Fri Mar 14 2014 Sandro Mani
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065758
--- Comment #19 from Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com ---
I ran fedora-review on the latest srpm and ran into a few issues:
Looks like there is a conflict with the omniORB4 package...
Transaction check error:
file /usr/include/omniORB4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065758
--- Comment #18 from Sandro Mani manisan...@gmail.com ---
Hi Richard, what is the status with this? I should be able to continue looking
at salome in the coming weeks, so would be nice to have this.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065758
--- Comment #16 from Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com ---
Have we followed up with the omniORB package owner to determine the best way to
avoid the conflicting files between the two packages? It just seems odd since
they share the same
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065758
--- Comment #17 from Sandro Mani manisan...@gmail.com ---
init.py is just an empty file to show that omniidl_be is a module, no other
files conflict, so I think this is ok.
As far as cross-dependencies, I think that it is quite often done
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065758
--- Comment #15 from Sandro Mani manisan...@gmail.com ---
Spec URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/omniORBpy.spec
SRPM URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/omniORBpy-3.7-4.fc21.src.rpm
%changelog
* Wed Feb 18 2014 Sandro Mani
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065758
Sandro Mani manisan...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Review Request: |Review Request:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065758
Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|cicku...@gmail.com |
--- Comment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065758
Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065758
--- Comment #3 from Sandro Mani manisan...@gmail.com ---
The way I interpreted the guidelines you linked, I'd say that python-omniORB is
correct. Which makes me notice that I used the incorrect package name in the
bug title, fixing that.
--
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065758
Sandro Mani manisan...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||karlthe...@gmail.com
19 matches
Mail list logo
