https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352215
--- Comment #7 from Milan Bouchet-Valat ---
Actually, I wanted to follow that naming convention too, but in the initial
review I was asked to use llvm33 instead. Glad to see the guidelines have been
made more explicit. I've
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352215
--- Comment #6 from Jason Tibbitts ---
Sorry, what request do you need to be validated? Have you requested your
package in the package database? You can use this ticket as the reference. I
can process the request, or if
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352215
--- Comment #5 from Milan Bouchet-Valat ---
I still need somebody to support my request in order to get the git repos set
up. :-)
--
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=1352215
--- Comment #4 from Jason Tibbitts ---
Yeah, I didn't see the point in reviewing something that had already been
reviewed. Though I'm sure it could be cleaned up, there is probably utility in
keeping the specs and
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352215
--- Comment #3 from Milan Bouchet-Valat ---
Thanks! As per the latest guidelines, it seems that we don't actually have to
follow the standard review process since LLVM is already packaged in Fedora:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352215
Jens Petersen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Alias||llvm37
--
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352215
--- Comment #2 from Jens Petersen ---
I am taking a look.
--
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=1352215
Milan Bouchet-Valat changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|