https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208835
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208835
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #13 from Fed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208835
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--
You are receiving
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208835
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System ---
gdouros-akkadian-fonts-7.13-0.2.20150430.fc22 has been submitted as an update
for Fedora 22.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gdouros-akkadian-fonts-7.13-0.2.20150430.fc22
--
You are recei
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208835
--- Comment #11 from Jon Ciesla ---
Complete.
--
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
___
pac
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208835
Jon Ciesla changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-cvs? |
--
You are receiving this mail because
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208835
--- Comment #10 from Alexander Ploumistos ---
Turns out the right version was 7.13 all along. He set it as 7.15 on the web
page and in the other files by mistake.
No need to change anything, your hunch was spot on!
--
You are receiving this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208835
Alexander Ploumistos changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--
You are receiv
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208835
--- Comment #9 from Alexander Ploumistos ---
Package Change Request
==
Package Name: gdouros-akkadian-fonts
Branches: f20 f21 f22 master
Owners: alexpl
InitialCC: fonts-sig
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208835
Parag AN(पराग) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from P
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208835
--- Comment #7 from Parag AN(पराग) ---
Thanks. Btw, Since last few days fedora-review and dnf is giving me problem
which is taking some time to review your packages. Just installed new mock
package from f22 testing repo and still some issues w
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208835
--- Comment #6 from Alexander Ploumistos ---
(In reply to Parag AN(पराग) from comment #5)
> Many times upstream developers of fonts do not update meta information like
> version number, License url, Copyright etc. in fonts also not release
> v
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208835
--- Comment #5 from Parag AN(पराग) ---
Many times upstream developers of fonts do not update meta information like
version number, License url, Copyright etc. in fonts also not release versioned
tarball. So best way to identify that upstream s
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208835
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Ploumistos ---
(In reply to Alexander Ploumistos from comment #3)
> a) Why is the leading zero necessary?
Never mind, I figured it out, I was looking at the wrong versioning example.
Here are the updated files:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208835
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Ploumistos ---
(In reply to Parag AN(पराग) from comment #2)
> 1) I propose to follow
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Pre-
> Release_packages with following changes
>
> %global checkout
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208835
Parag AN(पराग) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
16 matches
Mail list logo
