https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243758
gil cattaneo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243758
--- Comment #29 from gil cattaneo ---
Request for new package
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packager/gil/requests
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/504
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/505
--
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243758
Till Hofmann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #28 from Ti
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243758
--- Comment #27 from gil cattaneo ---
Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/apacheds-jdbm.spec
SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/apacheds-jdbm-2.0.0-0.4.M3.fc22.src.rpm
- add Provides: bundled(jdbm1)
see https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/t
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243758
gil cattaneo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) |
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.r
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243758
--- Comment #26 from Till Hofmann ---
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #25)
> There are other things to fix?
No, thank you for fixing all the issues. I suppose we should wait for the FPC
ticket. Once the bundling exception has been appr
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243758
--- Comment #25 from gil cattaneo ---
There are other things to fix?
--
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=1243758
--- Comment #24 from gil cattaneo ---
Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/apacheds-jdbm.spec
SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/apacheds-jdbm-2.0.0-0.3.M3.fc22.src.rpm
- fix license field
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243758
--- Comment #22 from Till Hofmann ---
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #21)
> (In reply to Till Hofmann from comment #20)
> > (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #19)
> > > (In reply to Till Hofmann from comment #16)
> > > > (In reply
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243758
--- Comment #23 from gil cattaneo ---
Created attachment 1066026
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1066026&action=edit
files.dir f23
fedora-review -b 1243758 --plugins Java -m fedora-23-i386
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243758
--- Comment #21 from gil cattaneo ---
(In reply to Till Hofmann from comment #20)
> (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #19)
> > (In reply to Till Hofmann from comment #16)
> > > (In reply to Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243758
--- Comment #20 from Till Hofmann ---
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #19)
> (In reply to Till Hofmann from comment #16)
> > (In reply to Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) from comment
> > #15)
> > because they haven't r
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243758
--- Comment #19 from gil cattaneo ---
(In reply to Till Hofmann from comment #16)
> (In reply to Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) from comment
> #15)
> because they haven't replied after one day. Therefore my initial comment 3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243758
--- Comment #18 from gil cattaneo ---
(In reply to Till Hofmann from comment #16)
> (In reply to Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) from comment
> #15)
> > Could be that Rawhide is strictly needed. Packages are to be reviewed an
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243758
--- Comment #17 from gil cattaneo ---
(In reply to Till Hofmann from comment #14)
> (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #11)
> > (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #8)
> > > (In reply to Till Hofmann from comment #7)
> > > > (In reply t
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243758
--- Comment #16 from Till Hofmann ---
(In reply to Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) from comment
#15)
> Could be that Rawhide is strictly needed. Packages are to be reviewed and
> approved for Rawhide, with extra work on branc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243758
--- Comment #15 from Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group)
---
Could be that Rawhide is strictly needed. Packages are to be reviewed and
approved for Rawhide, with extra work on branches being optional.
The generated %files lists
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243758
--- Comment #14 from Till Hofmann ---
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #11)
> (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #8)
> > (In reply to Till Hofmann from comment #7)
> > > (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #4)
> > > > (In reply to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243758
--- Comment #13 from gil cattaneo ---
Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/apacheds-jdbm.spec
SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/apacheds-jdbm-2.0.0-0.2.M3.fc22.src.rpm
- added extra comments about license
--
You are receiving this ma
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243758
--- Comment #12 from gil cattaneo ---
(In reply to Till Hofmann from comment #7)
> (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #4)
> > (In reply to Till Hofmann from comment #3)
> > > [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
> > >
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243758
--- Comment #11 from gil cattaneo ---
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #8)
> (In reply to Till Hofmann from comment #7)
> > (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #4)
> > > (In reply to Till Hofmann from comment #3)
> > > > [!]: Package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243758
--- Comment #10 from gil cattaneo ---
Created attachment 1065870
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1065870&action=edit
files.dir
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always not
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243758
--- Comment #9 from gil cattaneo ---
> strange ... i uploaded new spec file and src rpm some hour ago
--
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 compo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243758
--- Comment #8 from gil cattaneo ---
(In reply to Till Hofmann from comment #7)
> (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #4)
> > (In reply to Till Hofmann from comment #3)
> > > [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
> > >
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243758
--- Comment #7 from Till Hofmann ---
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #4)
> (In reply to Till Hofmann from comment #3)
> > [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
> > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/shar
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243758
--- Comment #6 from gil cattaneo ---
(In reply to Till Hofmann from comment #3)
> Please do not add the License file yourself.
this is the "normal" practice
Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/apacheds-jdbm.spec
SRPM URL: https://gil.fe
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243758
--- Comment #5 from gil cattaneo ---
mavibot - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243761
--
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 componen
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243758
--- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo ---
(In reply to Till Hofmann from comment #3)
> [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
> Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/maven-poms
> /apacheds-jdbm, /usr/share/jav
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243758
--- Comment #3 from Till Hofmann ---
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/maven-poms
/apacheds-jdbm, /usr/share/java/apacheds-jdbm
Please fix this.
[!]: Package d
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243758
--- Comment #2 from Till Hofmann ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243758
--- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo ---
Open https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIR-318 for missing license file
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this produc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243758
Till Hofmann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243758
gil cattaneo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||1255810
Referenced Bugs:
https://bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243758
gil cattaneo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||652183 (FE-JAVASIG)
Referenced Bugs:
34 matches
Mail list logo
