https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1419122
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1419122
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #21 from Fed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1419122
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--
You are receiving
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1419122
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System ---
rubygem-base32-0.3.2-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-7e5228d63b
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1419122
--- Comment #19 from Jon Ciesla ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/rubygem-base32
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified abou
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1419122
Sascha Spreitzer changed:
What|Removed |Added
External Bug ID||Red Hat Bugzilla 1424958
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1419122
Vít Ondruch changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vondr...@redhat.com
--- Comment #17 fro
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1419122
--- Comment #16 from Marcel Haerry ---
Done, so the %gem_install part is the only open part.
--
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=1419122
--- Comment #15 from Sascha Spreitzer ---
(In reply to Marcel Haerry from comment #14)
> Oh that's good to know. I already wondered why gem2rpm would create an
> invalid specfile. But given that background, I understand it that
> fedora-review
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1419122
--- Comment #14 from Marcel Haerry ---
(In reply to Simone Caronni from comment #11)
> (In reply to Sascha Spreitzer from comment #8)
> > Must:
> > ! license file in all packages
>
> Actually you need to make sure that the license is availabl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1419122
--- Comment #13 from Sascha Spreitzer ---
Hi Marcel
(In reply to Marcel Haerry from comment #9)
> gem_install:
>
> I don't really understand the problem with %gem_install, as I am using it:
>
> http://git.scrit.ch/srpm/rubygem-base32/tree/S
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1419122
--- Comment #12 from Sascha Spreitzer ---
Hi Simone
> fedora-review is "smart enough" to actually get the links in the last comment
> in which they are available, you don't need to make sure they are in the last
> comment before the actual
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1419122
Simone Caronni changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||negativ...@gmail.com
--- Comment #11
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1419122
--- Comment #10 from Marcel Haerry ---
new scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=17633948
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1419122
--- Comment #9 from Marcel Haerry ---
Thanks for reviewing
So:
license:
I added the licensefile to -doc:
http://git.scrit.ch/srpm/rubygem-base32/commit/?id=04662f077c193b38e3564fae97541e4f06cde01a
gem_install:
I don't really understand th
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1419122
--- Comment #8 from Sascha Spreitzer ---
So, overall it looks very good.
Only things to clarify:
Must:
! license file in all packages
? %gem_install and %install sections -> double work?
Optional:
? Tabstops for the tags to have a nicer spe
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1419122
--- Comment #7 from Sascha Spreitzer ---
Hi Marcel
- Please add the license file to all packages and subpackages via %license, i
think it is either missing in the main package or the -doc subpackage
- Please make use of the %gem_install macro
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1419122
--- Comment #6 from Sascha Spreitzer ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package contains Requires: ruby(release).
=
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1419122
--- Comment #5 from Sascha Spreitzer ---
Hi Marcel
- Please add the license file to all packages and subpackages via %license, i
think it is either missing in the main package or the -doc subpackage
-
--
You are receiving this mail because:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1419122
--- Comment #4 from Sascha Spreitzer ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an o
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1419122
--- Comment #3 from Sascha Spreitzer ---
Thank you!
As I am using fedora-review it is better I am pasting the plain/raw link
version of the spec link here for automatic processing.
Spec URL:
http://git.scrit.ch/srpm/rubygem-base32/plain/SPEC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1419122
Marcel Haerry changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(mh+fedora@scrit.c |
|h)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1419122
Sascha Spreitzer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1419122
Sascha Spreitzer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|sspre...@redhat.com
Fla
24 matches
Mail list logo