https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1202063
Antti Järvinen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|POST|CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1202063
--- Comment #27 from Jon Ciesla ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/classified-ads
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified abou
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1202063
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
--- Comment #26 fr
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1202063
--- Comment #25 from Antti Järvinen ---
All right, I have done two more initial reviews for programs implemented in
technologies that I know at least something about, here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1323334 is Qt gui for "pas
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1202063
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1202063
--- Comment #23 from Antti Järvinen ---
All Right,
spec+rpm have been updated in previously announced location. Changes this time
include:
- Install happens with %make_install. INSTALL_ROOT is still required in
addition to DESTDIR so length
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1202063
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |
Summary|Revie
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1202063
--- Comment #21 from Antti Järvinen ---
Spec URL: http://katiska.org/classified_ads/srpm/classified-ads.spec
SRPM URL:
http://katiska.org/classified_ads/srpm/classified-ads-0.10-1.fc25.src.rpm
Ok Sirs, here is what is intended for 0.10 relea
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1202063
--- Comment #20 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ---
If you prefer, you can wait... but those (small) packaging issues are mostly
independent of upstream version. I don't see why this review should not be
finished without waiting a few weeks f
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1202063
--- Comment #19 from Antti Järvinen ---
Ok, great.
There is a new upstream release coming in a few weeks, release testing is
ongoing. My suggestion is that as new version is packaged, the problems listed
by Zbigniew are fixed in the process.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1202063
--- Comment #18 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ---
?
--
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=1202063
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbys...@in.waw.pl
--
Y
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1202063
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Fla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1202063
--- Comment #16 from Antti Järvinen ---
Spec URL: http://katiska.org/classified_ads/srpm/classified-ads.spec
SRPM URL:
http://katiska.org/classified_ads/srpm/classified-ads-0.09-1.fc24.src.rpm
Updated to latest upstream release (mostly bugfi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1202063
--- Comment #15 from Antti Järvinen ---
Spec URL: http://katiska.org/classified_ads/srpm/classified-ads.spec
SRPM URL:
http://katiska.org/classified_ads/srpm/classified-ads-0.07-1.fc21.src.rpm
Updated to latest upstream release, packaging is
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1202063
--- Comment #14 from Antti Järvinen ---
And according to http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9345035 it
seems to compile also on ARM..
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1202063
--- Comment #13 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ---
(In reply to Antti Järvinen from comment #12)
> - If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
> its own file, then that file, containing the text of the lice
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1202063
--- Comment #12 from Antti Järvinen ---
Spec URL: http://katiska.org/classified_ads/srpm/classified-ads.spec
SRPM URL:
http://katiska.org/classified_ads/srpm/classified-ads-0.05-1.fc21.src.rpm
Ok, fedora-review was very helpful, issues raise
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1202063
--- Comment #11 from Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group)
---
> now it seems to me that rpmbuild wants to find sources inside tarball in
> directory named - and if I change package name, the
> directory name inside tarball needs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1202063
--- Comment #10 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ---
The flag is OK.
--
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=1202063
--- Comment #9 from Antti Järvinen ---
Ok, great, after un-necessarily twiddling with the fedora-review -flag I don't
know if this bugreport is still having correct status to go forward? Regardless
of the flag value, I'd still be in need of a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1202063
Antti Järvinen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
--
You are receiving this mail bec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1202063
Antti Järvinen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review?
--
You are receiving
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1202063
--- Comment #8 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ---
Yep, spec file looks good. But you still need a sponsor. I'd suggest doing a
few reviews of other packages (without actually approving them or setting the
fedora-review flag, since you haven'
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1202063
--- Comment #7 from Antti Järvinen ---
Spec URL: http://katiska.org/classified_ads/srpm/classified-ads.spec
SRPM URL:
http://katiska.org/classified_ads/srpm/classified-ads-0.04-2.fc21.src.rpm
Dear Sirs,
Changes 0.04-1 -> 0.04-2
* _ → - in
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1202063
--- Comment #6 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ---
Since the underscore is in the upstream name, and the package is already used,
then keep it the way it is. It's nicer to have dashes then underscores in a
name, but consistency is the most im
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1202063
--- Comment #5 from Antti Järvinen ---
Just a quick question about this name change .. while I'm the upstream, it is
technically possible to rename the package. Now it seems to me that rpmbuild
wants to find sources inside tarball in directory
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1202063
--- Comment #4 from Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group)
---
> _ → - in name
Please do point at the packaging guidelines more often than not:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Naming
->
https://fedoraproject.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1202063
--- Comment #3 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ---
Make the changes in the specfile, including bumping the Release field and
adding a line in %changelog. Then recreate the srpm and a comment with new Spec
URL: and SRPM URL: fields. Use the sa
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1202063
--- Comment #2 from Antti Järvinen ---
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #1)
> _ → - in name
>
> QMAKE_ARGS+="INCLUDEPATH+=${LOCALBASE}/include/miniupnpc/
> LIBS+=-L${LOCALBASE}/lib"
..
Thank you for your comment Zbigniew
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1202063
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl
--- C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1202063
Antti Järvinen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
Referenced
32 matches
Mail list logo
