https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447517
sanford rockowitz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
Referenc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447517
--- Comment #1 from Michael Schwendt ---
> The spec file will likely require cleanup. It's grown into a complex mess
Indeed.
It will be very hard to find a reviewer for such a package, less a reviewer who
would approve the package.
Please
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447517
--- Comment #2 from sanford rockowitz ---
Per your suggestion, I have created a simple ddcutil.spec file for use only
when creating Fedora distribution packages (i.e. no OBS, no SuSE). The spec
file creates only the standalone application ver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447517
Jan Kalina changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jkal...@redhat.com
--- Comment #3 from J
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447517
--- Comment #4 from sanford rockowitz ---
Per Jan's review, the %files section has been changed so that package ddcutil
owns directories /usr/share/doc/ddcutil and /usr/share/ddcutil.
I believe the rpmlint complaint about hidden directory /us
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447517
Damian Wrobel changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dwro...@ertelnet.rybnik.pl
--- Commen
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447517
--- Comment #16 from Paweł ---
(In reply to Damian Wrobel from comment #15)
> The package no longer compiles as the spec file is missing:
>
> BuildRequires: gcc
Latest spec and src.rpm is here ->
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/resu
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447517
--- Comment #17 from sanford rockowitz ---
Re not installing a udev rule, unfortunately there is no single right thing to
do. There may already be rules in /etc/udev/rules.d that affect the /dev/i2c
devices (not all of which are necessarily f
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447517
--- Comment #18 from sanford rockowitz ---
Actually, I was surprised to receive a message re this bug report. I stopped
receiving weekly notifications of inaction some time ago (IIRC at the time of
the f29 release), and assumed the request fo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447517
--- Comment #5 from sanford rockowitz ---
New Spec and SRPM files to reflect recent upstream release 0.8.5. For a
description of changes, see http://www.ddcutil.com/release_notes.
Updated file locations:
Spec URL: http://www.ddcutil.com/fed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447517
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447517
--- Comment #7 from sanford rockowitz ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #6)
> - Not sure what is this for:
>
> rpm --version
> rpmbuild --version
- Purely informational, dating from the time I was trying to create a singl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447517
--- Comment #8 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
> When I upload the updated package, should I bump the release number from 1 to
> 2, given that the package is still under review?
It's not needed, no.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
Yo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447517
--- Comment #9 from sanford rockowitz ---
ddcutil.spec has been modified per Robert-André Mauchin's comments.
In particular, the %doc/%licence simplification has been implemented. Having
upstream not install the docdir files actually simplif
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447517
--- Comment #10 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
The package is okay to be accepted imho. You still need a sponsor thogh, try
introducing yourself to the fedora-devel mailing list.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447517
--- Comment #11 from sanford rockowitz ---
New Spec and SRPM files to reflect recent upstream release 0.8.6. For a
description of changes, see http://www.ddcutil.com/release_notes.
Updated file locations:
Spec URL: http://www.ddcutil.com/fe
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447517
--- Comment #12 from sanford rockowitz ---
New Spec and SRPM files to reflect recent upstream release 0.9.1. For a
description of changes, see http://www.ddcutil.com/release_notes.
Updated file locations:
Spec URL: http://www.ddcutil.com/fe
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447517
James Hogarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|james.hoga...@gmail.com
Fl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447517
--- Comment #13 from James Hogarth ---
Hi Sanford,
I am a sponsor and can take this to the finish line with you.
As per the following documentation:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group
in the section
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447517
James Hogarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(rockowitz@minsoft
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447517
--- Comment #14 from sanford rockowitz ---
Just a comment since bugzilla is complaining of no action on NEEDINFO. James
Hogarth and I are in ongoing email communication re the informal review
requests.
Sanford
--
You are receiving this mai
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447517
--- Comment #21 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 ---
(In reply to Qiyu Yan from comment #20)
> Sorry to bother you here, do you mind if I submit a new review request on
> this package. I found this tool is very useful and am willing to maintain
> t
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447517
--- Comment #22 from sanford rockowitz ---
My email program indicates I responded to comment 20 from Qiyu Yan on 9/17.
Since the response doesn't seem to be in the bugzilla log, for completeness
here it is again:
I'd be delighted if you took
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447517
sanford rockowitz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447517
Qiyu Yan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||yanqiy...@gmail.com
--- Comment #20 from Q
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447517
sanford rockowitz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(rockowitz@minsoft |needinfo-
|.com)
26 matches
Mail list logo
