https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
--- Comment #76 from Fedora Update System ---
soletta-1-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
Parag AN(पराग) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |
--- Comment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
--- Comment #74 from Gustavo Lima Chaves ---
Well, I'm still waiting for the Fedora 24 testing request. Also, on rawhide,
we're getting hit with errors on builds for the new aarch64 target -- a
floating point
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
--- Comment #73 from Fedora Update System ---
soletta-1-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
--- Comment #72 from Fedora Update System ---
soletta-1-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
--- Comment #70 from Fedora Update System ---
soletta-1-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-8f80075e7f
--
You are receiving this mail because:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
--- Comment #69 from Fedora Update System ---
soletta-1-1.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-a45444cb7d
--
You are receiving this mail because:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
--- Comment #68 from Gustavo Lima Chaves ---
New spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/solettaproject/soletta-packaging/v12/rpm/soletta.spec
New SRPM URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
--- Comment #67 from Paulo Andrade
---
Hi Gustavo,
About the changelog, feel free to to how you think is
better.
For now there isn't much logs in the changelog, but if
you kept that way, soon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
Gustavo Lima Chaves changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
--- Comment #66 from Gustavo Lima Chaves ---
Thanks a lot, Paulo!
I'll do the alias file reference, sorry for that (rpmlint failed me on that, I
think :/).
As for Changelogs, can I simply edit the ones I got,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
--- Comment #65 from Jon Ciesla ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/soletta
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
--- Comment #64 from Paulo Andrade
---
Gustavo,
Welcome as a Fedora packager!
Please see remaining information at
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
Paulo Andrade changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
--- Comment #62 from Gustavo Lima Chaves ---
New spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/solettaproject/soletta-packaging/v11/rpm/soletta.spec
New SRPM URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
--- Comment #61 from Gustavo Lima Chaves ---
v1.0 ack-ed on our side, with rpmlint happy for all assets. Now going for
Fedora's infra back again (koji build).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
--- Comment #60 from Gustavo Lima Chaves ---
https://github.com/solettaproject/soletta-packaging/pull/26 awaiting review,
now
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
--- Comment #59 from Gustavo Lima Chaves ---
The next iteration is coming soon. We're really rushing towards 1.0 here, and
since we had agreed on only packaging with a release (out of beta state), I'm
focusing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
--- Comment #58 from Gustavo Lima Chaves ---
Thanks, Paulo! I'll wait for the verdict on the Python Licensing citation,
then. Sad that the build issue is still there, we'll put more effort to fix
that for the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
--- Comment #57 from Paulo Andrade
---
Hi Gustavo.
The package looks pretty good now.
There is still the issue of it building twice, but since the
package builds fast, and you know already
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
--- Comment #56 from Paulo Andrade
---
(In reply to Gustavo Lima Chaves from comment #55)
Hi Gustavo,
> Ping. Have you had the time to take a look, Paulo? I can bump the spec to
> newer code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
--- Comment #55 from Gustavo Lima Chaves ---
Ping. Have you had the time to take a look, Paulo? I can bump the spec to newer
code before that if you prefer too, no big deal. We're closer to the 1st
release now,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
--- Comment #52 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
glchaves's scratch build of soletta-0.0.1-beta13.1.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide
failed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
--- Comment #53 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
glchaves's scratch build of soletta-0.0.1-beta13.1.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide
completed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
--- Comment #54 from Gustavo Lima Chaves ---
New spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/solettaproject/soletta-packaging/v9/rpm/soletta.spec
New SRPM URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
--- Comment #51 from Gustavo Lima Chaves ---
Thanks a lot, Paulo! I'll be updating the package soon (now for real), with all
comments taken into account. We've been rushing with our v1 backlog and I
waited a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
--- Comment #50 from Paulo Andrade
---
Hi Gustavo, since this review has been a bit silent, I did run a full
review again, so, removing some noise of "fedora-review -b 1264546"
on latest rawhide,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
--- Comment #49 from Gustavo Lima Chaves ---
> I think we are almost done with the review. I would like to have
> an extra comment about my question about if you have an ETA for
> a stable release. For safety,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
--- Comment #44 from Gustavo Lima Chaves ---
Thanks, Michael. I agree, and if you check the history it was like the
guidelines before Paulo asked me to change (Release:
0.1.%{soletta_tag}%{?dist}). Paulo, do you
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
--- Comment #45 from Paulo Andrade
---
Hi Gustavo and Michael.
I just started a new fedora-review call, so will comment about
other issues later.
About versioning in release. The guidelines tell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
--- Comment #46 from Gustavo Lima Chaves ---
$ rpmdev-vercmp 0.0.1-beta10.1 0.0.1-beta8.222
0.0.1-beta10.1 > 0.0.1-beta8.222
$ rpmdev-vercmp 0.0.1-1 0.0.1-beta8.222
0.0.1-1 > 0.0.1-beta8.222
Personally I like
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
--- Comment #47 from Paulo Andrade
---
Hi Gustavo,
While most times the warnings about spelling errors are
pointless, there are these:
%description flow-module-form
This package contains the form
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
--- Comment #48 from Michael Schwendt ---
It is not my duty to enforce the package versioning guidelines.
I mentioned the guidelines, because %version 0.0.1.beta10 would be problematic,
if there were a 0.0.1 final
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
--- Comment #40 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
glchaves's scratch build of soletta-0.0.1.beta10-1.fc22.src.rpm for rawhide
completed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
--- Comment #43 from Michael Schwendt ---
Hard to tell, as entry->size could be anything and isn't checked within that
function.
Can you enhance the build, so that the output is more verbose and shows the
detailed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
--- Comment #41 from Gustavo Lima Chaves ---
> In function '__fread_alias',
> inlined from 'sol_memmap_write_raw_do.isra.2' at
> ./src/lib/io/sol-memmap-storage.c:169:15:
> /usr/include/bits/stdio2.h:290:9:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
--- Comment #42 from Gustavo Lima Chaves ---
New spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/solettaproject/soletta-packaging/v6/rpm/soletta.spec
New SRPM URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
--- Comment #39 from Paulo Andrade
---
Thanks Micahel.
Gustavo, please follow Michael advice, and add
Provides:bundled(duktape) = 1.2.2
duktape-static should be provided by a duktape package,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
--- Comment #38 from Michael Schwendt ---
> Provides: duktape-static = 1.2.2
Unusual. Those -static Provides are added to packages, which are build
requirements themselves, *not* to packages that are linked
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
--- Comment #37 from Paulo Andrade
---
Hi Gustavo,
In the next package you submit for review, please add this
to the main package:
Provides:bundled(tinycbor) = 0.2
Provides:duktape-static =
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
--- Comment #35 from Paulo Andrade
---
Hi Gustavo,
---%<---
First we will need to sort out some issues with the third party
software.
I see there is a review request for tinycbor at
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
--- Comment #36 from Gustavo Lima Chaves ---
> Hi Gustavo,
Hi, Paulo.
>
> I started the process to become your sponsor.
>
> I believe you showed that you will have enough persistence
> to maintain the package,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
Paulo Andrade changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
--- Comment #29 from Gustavo Lima Chaves ---
> Yes. It's only pointed out at
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FrequentlyMadePackagingMistakes
>
> because for the review process it has been assumed that
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
--- Comment #33 from Gustavo Lima Chaves ---
Created attachment 1084917
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1084917=edit
v4 to v5 differences of the spec
This is to aid in the changes from v4 to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
--- Comment #30 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
glchaves's scratch build of soletta-0.0.1.beta8-1.fc22.src.rpm for rawhide
failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11518781
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
--- Comment #32 from Gustavo Lima Chaves ---
> Hi Gustavo,
Hi, Paulo.
>
> My concern when asking if you plan to package other software is
> that sometimes, getting sponsored may not be a so easy task :)
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
--- Comment #31 from Paulo Andrade
---
Hi Gustavo,
My concern when asking if you plan to package other software is
that sometimes, getting sponsored may not be a so easy task :)
and sometimes one
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
--- Comment #28 from Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group)
---
> Do we make updates and changelog bumps here in process of
> package review too (before any publishment)?
Yes. It's only pointed out at
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
--- Comment #27 from Gustavo Lima Chaves ---
> Hi Gustavo,
Hi, Paulo!
> We talked briefly in Latinoware, and I understand you want
> this package in Fedora :) And I am sure it would be very
> useful. I do not
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
Paulo Andrade changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
--- Comment #24 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
glchaves's scratch build of soletta-0.0.1-0.1.beta7.fc22.src.rpm for rawhide
failed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
--- Comment #25 from Gustavo Lima Chaves ---
The second build just above failed because it now include make checks and it
fails on i686. I'll fix that and re-submit.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
--- Comment #23 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
glchaves's scratch build of soletta-0.0.1-0.1.beta7.fc22.src.rpm for rawhide
failed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
--- Comment #22 from Gustavo Lima Chaves ---
We released beta6 now, it should not take long till I update the specs
accordingly. We're approaching the actual first release, too.
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
--- Comment #21 from Gustavo Lima Chaves ---
BTW, would you sponsor me, Michael? Thanks for the tips so far :)
--
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=1264546
--- Comment #10 from Gustavo Lima Chaves ---
Thanks a lot, Piotr, I'll be looking at the issues you pointed today. BTW,
since Fidencio can't be my sponsor (he seems not to classify for that), would
you? :)
--
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
--- Comment #15 from Gustavo Lima Chaves ---
Thanks, guys. I'm working on the spec to test it against rawhide too. It should
not take long to post the update stuff here.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
--- Comment #16 from Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group)
---
> warning: bogus date in %changelog
> Just add an space between "Sep" and "2", or change it to "Sep 02" if
> you prefer that notation.
That's
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
--- Comment #18 from Gustavo Lima Chaves ---
> That's *not* what the warning is about. "Tue Sep 2" is bogus, because either
> it's "Wed Sep 2" or "Tue Sep 1". Watch this:
Yes, Michael, I knew that and had a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
Gustavo Lima Chaves changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
--- Comment #14 from Piotr Popieluch ---
Version lgtm now.
See my build logs here:
https://gist.github.com/piotr1212/a8ed3ffc34bba9c88794
Package reviews should be against rawhide (f24 currently). Please check if your
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
--- Comment #11 from Piotr Popieluch ---
I'm sorry but am not a sponsor either.
Best way to get sponsored fast is to do a lot of informal package reviews so
you will show you understand the package guidelines. Then link
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
--- Comment #19 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
glchaves's scratch build of soletta-0.0.1-0.1.beta5.fc22.src.rpm for rawhide
completed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
--- Comment #20 from Gustavo Lima Chaves ---
After second round of reviews, here we are:
New spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/solettaproject/soletta-packaging/v4/rpm/soletta.spec
New SRPM URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group)
changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
--- Comment #13 from Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group)
---
You are supposed to test-build against Rawhide and review for Rawhide.
> [ is this true or moot? ]:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
--- Comment #17 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
glchaves's scratch build of soletta-0.0.1-0.1.beta5.fc22.src.rpm for rawhide
failed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
--- Comment #6 from Gustavo Lima Chaves ---
> By the way:
> Gustavo please fix the url's for Source0 and Source1, they do not work.
Sorry, indeed the 0 one was wrong. What's the point of github having the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
--- Comment #5 from Gustavo Lima Chaves ---
> I can't sponsor you, but I can give some suggestions.
Thanks a lot for the suggestions, Christopher! I guess Fidencio and I
will continue fine with this (thank you
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
--- Comment #7 from Gustavo Lima Chaves ---
So, after this 1st round of reviews, here we are:
New spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/solettaproject/soletta-packaging/v3/rpm/soletta.spec
New SRPM URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
--- Comment #4 from Gustavo Lima Chaves ---
Thank you guys. I'll be fixing the pointed issues one by one today. Later on
I'll resubmit, with any possible doubts posted here.
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
--- Comment #2 from Fabiano Fidêncio ---
Christopher, thanks for jump in the review, I hope you don't mind to answer a
few questions.
Why "3. Drop Group tags in all packages"? They are not the same, better have it
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
Jens Lody changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fed...@jenslody.de
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
Christopher Meng changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||i...@cicku.me
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
Gustavo Lima Chaves changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|rawhide |22
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
Gustavo Lima Chaves changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|
80 matches
Mail list logo