https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152247
Michael Simacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152247
--- Comment #10 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=1152247
Jon Ciesla changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
--
You are receiving this m
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152247
Mo Morsi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #9 from Mo Morsi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152247
Michael Simacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152247
--- Comment #7 from Mo Morsi ---
Updated
Spec: https://mmorsi.fedorapeople.org/staging/options.spec
SRPM: https://mmorsi.fedorapeople.org/staging/options-1.2-4.fc20.src.rpm
Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8324554
--
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152247
--- Comment #6 from Michael Simacek ---
(In reply to Mo Morsi from comment #4)
> Included the license file in the main package and marked as %doc (including
> it in both would result in conflicts wouldn't it?
If you use the %doc directive corr
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152247
--- Comment #5 from Mo Morsi ---
Sorry that should be
Spec: https://mmorsi.fedorapeople.org/staging/options.spec
SRPM: https://mmorsi.fedorapeople.org/staging/options-1.2-3.fc20.src.rpm
Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?task
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152247
--- Comment #4 from Mo Morsi ---
Included the license file in the main package and marked as %doc (including it
in both would result in conflicts wouldn't it?). Updated:
Spec: https://mmorsi.fedorapeople.org/staging/options.spec
SRPM: https:/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152247
--- Comment #3 from Michael Simacek ---
I missed the comment, sorry for blocking this.
The license file is now only installed in the javadoc subpackage but it's
missing from the main package. And it should be marked as %doc in both.
--
You a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152247
--- Comment #2 from Mo Morsi ---
Thanks for review
(In reply to Michael Simacek from comment #1)
> Package Review
> ==
>
> Issues:
> - ASL 2.0 license requires the license text to be included in the RPM
> - Incorrect changelog fo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152247
--- Comment #1 from Michael Simacek ---
Package Review
==
Issues:
- ASL 2.0 license requires the license text to be included in the RPM
- Incorrect changelog format (missing version-release)
- Group tag is obsolete, please don't u
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152247
Michael Simacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152247
Mo Morsi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||1152249
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzill
14 matches
Mail list logo
