https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359402
Antonio T. sagitter changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trp...@rocketmail.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359402
Antonio T. sagitter changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
CC|anto.tr
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
Antonio T. sagitter has granted Package Review
's request for Antonio T. (sagitter)
's needinfo:
Bug 1359402: Review Request: coot - crystallographic macromolecular building
toolkit (unretire request)
https://bugzilla.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359402
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppi...@redhat.com
Assignee|nob..
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359402
Antonio Trande changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|anto.tra...@gmail.com |nob...@fedoraproject.org
White
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359402
--- Comment #36 from Antonio Trande ---
Ask on 'devel' mailing list.
--
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=1359402
--- Comment #35 from Tim Fenn ---
my fedora account doesn't have TICKET_CREATE privileges on rel-eng trac to make
the unretire request. How should I proceed?
--
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=1359402
Antonio Trande changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #34 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359402
--- Comment #33 from Tim Fenn ---
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #32)
> - Please, remove empty sections (%check, %clean)
>
Done.
> - Since Python sub-directory is named 'coot', i think it's better naming the
> related packages as
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359402
--- Comment #32 from Antonio Trande ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Please, remove empty sections (%check, %clean)
- S
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359402
--- Comment #31 from Tim Fenn ---
Finally found enough time to fix the majority (if not all) the
unused-direct-shlib issues:
https://timfenn.fedorapeople.org/coot.spec
https://timfenn.fedorapeople.org/coot-0.8.7-2.fc24.src.rpm
--
You are re
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359402
--- Comment #30 from Tim Fenn ---
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #29)
> (In reply to Tim Fenn from comment #28)
> > (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #27)
> > > Created attachment 1221971 [details]
> > > review log
> > >
> >
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359402
--- Comment #29 from Antonio Trande ---
(In reply to Tim Fenn from comment #28)
> (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #27)
> > Created attachment 1221971 [details]
> > review log
> >
> > Package Review
> > ==
> >
> > Legend:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359402
--- Comment #28 from Tim Fenn ---
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #27)
> Created attachment 1221971 [details]
> review log
>
> Package Review
> ==
>
> Legend:
> [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not eva
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359402
Antonio Trande changed:
What|Removed |Added
Whiteboard|NotReady BuildFails |
--
You are receiving this mail bec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359402
--- Comment #27 from Antonio Trande ---
Created attachment 1221971
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1221971&action=edit
review log
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = N
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359402
--- Comment #26 from Tim Fenn ---
(In reply to Gianluca Sforna from comment #25)
> I just managed to build rdkit in rawhide (no docs, no tests, but at least
> we're there) so now you should be able to compile against it.
Ah great, yes - this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359402
--- Comment #25 from Gianluca Sforna ---
I just managed to build rdkit in rawhide (no docs, no tests, but at least we're
there) so now you should be able to compile against it.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list f
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359402
Antonio Trande changed:
What|Removed |Added
Whiteboard||NotReady BuildFails
--- Comment #24
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359402
--- Comment #23 from Tim Fenn ---
(In reply to Gianluca Sforna from comment #22)
> Sorry guys for the rdkit related issues.
>
> Yes, right now I pushed the patch for the missing headers only in F24/F25
>
> rdkit in rawhide had several setbac
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359402
--- Comment #22 from Gianluca Sforna ---
Sorry guys for the rdkit related issues.
Yes, right now I pushed the patch for the missing headers only in F24/F25
rdkit in rawhide had several setbacks (new archs added with missing deps, a
pre-relea
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359402
--- Comment #21 from Tim Fenn ---
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #20)
> (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #19)
> > (In reply to Tim Fenn from comment #18)
> > > (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #17)
> > > > Why are you
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359402
--- Comment #20 from Antonio Trande ---
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #19)
> (In reply to Tim Fenn from comment #18)
> > (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #17)
> > > Why are you using coot-rdkit.patch ?
> > >
> >
> > It doe
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359402
Antonio Trande changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gia...@gmail.com
--- Comment #19 fro
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359402
--- Comment #18 from Tim Fenn ---
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #17)
> Why are you using coot-rdkit.patch ?
>
It doesn't compile on F24 without it. However on rawhide it doesn't compile
with or without the patch, as it seems the l
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359402
--- Comment #17 from Antonio Trande ---
Why are you using coot-rdkit.patch ?
--- lbg/lbg-search.cc_orig2016-11-09 18:29:44.870809951 -0500
+++ lbg/lbg-search.cc2016-11-09 18:42:43.549933656 -0500
@@ -34,7 +34,7 @@
#include "geometry/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359402
--- Comment #16 from Tim Fenn ---
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #15)
> coot does not compile on rawhide:
>
> libtool: compile: g++ -DPACKAGE_NAME=\"coot\" -DPACKAGE_TARNAME=\"coot\"
> -DPACKAGE_VERSION=\"0.8.7\" "-DPACKAGE_STRING=
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359402
--- Comment #15 from Antonio Trande ---
coot does not compile on rawhide:
libtool: compile: g++ -DPACKAGE_NAME=\"coot\" -DPACKAGE_TARNAME=\"coot\"
-DPACKAGE_VERSION=\"0.8.7\" "-DPACKAGE_STRING=\"coot 0.8.7\""
-DPACKAGE_BUGREPORT=\"\" -DPACKA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359402
--- Comment #14 from Tim Fenn ---
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #13)
> Package Review
> ==
>
> Legend:
> [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
> [ ] = Manual review needed
>
>
> Issues:
> =
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359402
--- Comment #13 from Antonio Trande ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package does not use a name that already exists.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359402
--- Comment #12 from Tim Fenn ---
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #11)
> >OK, so just switch this to GPLv3+ and delete all the other stuff?
> Yes.
>
Done.
> Package Review
> ==
>
> Legend:
> [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359402
--- Comment #11 from Antonio Trande ---
>OK, so just switch this to GPLv3+ and delete all the other stuff?
Yes.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review neede
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359402
--- Comment #10 from Tim Fenn ---
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #9)
>
> - hicolr-icon-theme should be a Requires package
>
Done.
> - /usr/share/icons/hicolor/* directories are owned by hicolr-icon-theme.
> You must list the co
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359402
--- Comment #9 from Antonio Trande ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package unretired
Package does not use a name that
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359402
--- Comment #8 from Tim Fenn ---
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #7)
> (In reply to Tim Fenn from comment #6)
> > (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #5)
> > > (In reply to Tim Fenn from comment #4)
> > > >
> > > > > - doc sub-p
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359402
--- Comment #7 from Antonio Trande ---
(In reply to Tim Fenn from comment #6)
> (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #5)
> > (In reply to Tim Fenn from comment #4)
> > >
> > > > - doc sub-package isn't noarch
> > > >
> > >
> > > I didn'
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359402
--- Comment #6 from Tim Fenn ---
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #5)
> (In reply to Tim Fenn from comment #4)
> >
> > > - doc sub-package isn't noarch
> > >
> >
> > I didn't specify it as such?
>
> I don't see any 'BuildArch: noar
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359402
Antonio Trande changed:
What|Removed |Added
Whiteboard|AwaitingSubmitter |
--
You are receiving this mail bec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359402
--- Comment #5 from Antonio Trande ---
(In reply to Tim Fenn from comment #4)
>
> > - doc sub-package isn't noarch
> >
>
> I didn't specify it as such?
I don't see any 'BuildArch: noarch' line...
>
> New files:
>
> spec: https://drive.g
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359402
Tim Fenn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(tim.f...@gmail.co |
|m)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359402
Antonio Trande changed:
What|Removed |Added
Whiteboard||AwaitingSubmitter
--
You are receiv
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359402
Antonio Trande changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tim.f...@gmail.com
Flags|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359402
--- Comment #3 from Antonio Trande ---
Hi Tim.
First of all:
- Leave a comment about what patches do.
- python(2)-sitelib macro is already defined
- Use python2-devel as BR package
- Use macros instead of hardlinks:
/usr --> %{_prefix}
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359402
Antonio Trande changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nob...@fed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359402
--- Comment #2 from Tim Fenn ---
Sorry, corrupted link. Updated.
SRPM URL: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxOz1eBnQT3nbW5Kb0RhdW1YOVU
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified ab
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359402
--- Comment #1 from Tim Fenn ---
Updated spec/SRPM (for 0.8.6.1 version of the package):
Spec URL: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxOz1eBnQT3najl1NDBoVkc2ZUk
SRPM URL: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxOz1eBnQT3nTVVJLUxPSUlPZjg
--
You
46 matches
Mail list logo
