https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135151
Parag AN(पराग) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|abeek...@redhat.com |dvos...@redhat.com
--
You are recei
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135151
Parag AN(पराग) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|POST|CLOSED
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135151
Fabio Massimo Di Nitto changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|fdini...@redhat.com |abeek...@redhat.com
--
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135151
John Skeoch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|dvos...@redhat.com |fdini...@redhat.com
--
You are receivi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135151
--- Comment #8 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=1135151
Jon Ciesla changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
--
You are receiving this m
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135151
Andrew Beekhof changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||and...@beekhof.net
Flags|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135151
Andrew Beekhof changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Beek
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135151
David Vossel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--
You are receiving t
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135151
Andrew Beekhof changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review?
--
You are receiving
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135151
--- Comment #6 from David Vossel ---
MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.[1]
# rpmlint sbd-1.2.1-0.2.8f91294.git.src.rpm
sbd.src: W: invalid-license G
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135151
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Beekhof ---
(In reply to David Vossel from comment #4)
> Package looks good, here are a few things I found.
>
> - license. GPL-2.0+ is typically written GPLv2+
done
>
> - release. we typically use the %{?dist} t
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135151
--- Comment #4 from David Vossel ---
Package looks good, here are a few things I found.
- license. GPL-2.0+ is typically written GPLv2+
- release. we typically use the %{?dist} tag
- the rpm built fine. There were some warnings at the begi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135151
David Vossel changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dvos...@redhat.com
Assignee|no
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135151
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Beekhof ---
New srpm:
http://clusterlabs.org/~beekhof/sbd-repo/sbd-1.2.1-0.2.8f91294.git.src.rpm
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135151
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Beekhof ---
Why would I start from scratch when half the work is already done?
I deleted a bunch of cruft, happy to delete more if needed.
What specifically is wrong with "%if %{defined _unitdir}" ?
I use it in othe
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135151
--- Comment #1 from Christopher Meng ---
Why can't you write the spec on your own instead of shipping losts of crufts
from SUSE?
All these below are invalid:
%if %{defined _unitdir}
%service_add_post
%clean
BuildRequires: python-devel
%
17 matches
Mail list logo
