https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173773
Adam Williamson (Red Hat) awill...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173773
--- Comment #22 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.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=1173773
Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
--
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173773
Adam Williamson (Fedora) adamw+fed...@happyassassin.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173773
--- Comment #15 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com ---
Since upstream made that release tarball, you can use it without issue. The
intent of the Github section here
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL) is to refer to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173773
--- Comment #16 from Adam Williamson (Fedora) adamw+fed...@happyassassin.net
---
tom: would it be possible to clarify the guidelines a bit? I've seen this
question come up before, and I read the guidelines the same way as Remi at
first. I can
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173773
--- Comment #17 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com ---
No, please, don't fix our guidelines, I couldn't bear it! /sarcasm
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173773
--- Comment #18 from Adam Williamson (Fedora) adamw+fed...@happyassassin.net
---
Well, pants, now I find the references for this stuff:
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/252
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/233
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173773
--- Comment #19 from Adam Williamson (Fedora) adamw+fed...@happyassassin.net
---
OK, revised (hopefully) one more time:
Spec URL:
https://www.happyassassin.net/reviews/php-bantu-ini-get-wrapper/php-bantu-ini-get-wrapper.spec
SRPM URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173773
Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173773
Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173773
--- Comment #3 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com ---
(In reply to Adam Williamson (Fedora) from comment #1)
The 'autoloader' for purpose of running the unit tests is of course
ridiculous and would break the moment upstream touches
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173773
--- Comment #4 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com ---
I forget to say, big plus for using a PSR-0 tree, it can be used by PSR-0 and
PSR-4 autoloaders ;)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173773
--- Comment #5 from Adam Williamson (Fedora) adamw+fed...@happyassassin.net
---
My only real problem with PSR-0ing PSR-4 libraries is, as I said in email, that
we can't entirely rely on them being uniquely named purely by class path, or
about
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173773
--- Comment #6 from Adam Williamson (Fedora) adamw+fed...@happyassassin.net
---
spec updated, new .src.rpm:
https://www.happyassassin.net/reviews/php-bantu-ini-get-wrapper/php-bantu-ini-get-wrapper-1.0.1-1.fc21.src.rpm
(fc21 not fc22,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173773
--- Comment #7 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com ---
I really think PSR-4 have no collision risk.
All libraries/classes name use a prefix vendor (as in PSR-0, even if some
libraries doesn't have it...)
PSR-4 is only a shorcut for
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173773
--- Comment #8 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com ---
Quick notes:
I understand why you were confused by PSR-4: you forget the vendor part in
the installation tree ;)
%global php_vendor bantu
%global php_namespace
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173773
--- Comment #9 from Adam Williamson (Fedora) adamw+fed...@happyassassin.net
---
I understand why you were confused by PSR-4: you forget the vendor part in
the installation tree ;)
Huh. Well, no, I didn't forget it - I was sure I checked the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173773
Adam Williamson (Fedora) adamw+fed...@happyassassin.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173773
--- Comment #11 from Adam Williamson (Fedora) adamw+fed...@happyassassin.net
---
new spec and .src.rpm up with things other than the tarball addressed; I'm
leaving the tarball as-is for now pending clarification.
--
You are receiving this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173773
Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173773
--- Comment #13 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com ---
Created attachment 968361
-- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=968361action=edit
review.txt
Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14
--
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173773
Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173773
--- Comment #1 from Adam Williamson (Fedora) adamw+fed...@happyassassin.net
---
This is one of the new 3rdparty deps that ownCloud 8.x will require, I'm trying
to get out ahead of them.
We still haven't (I don't think?) decided on an
24 matches
Mail list logo
