https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
--- Comment #106 from Fedora Update System ---
kronosnet-1.8-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
--- Comment #105 from Fedora Update System ---
kronosnet-1.8-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Tes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
--- Comment #104 from Fedora Update System ---
kronosnet-1.8-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-4780c5a01a
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
--- Comment #103 from Fedora Update System ---
kronosnet-1.5-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Tes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
--- Comment #102 from Fedora Update System ---
kronosnet-1.5-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-8e2a9e3dbe
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
--- Comment #101 from Fedora Update System ---
kronosnet-1.4-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
--- Comment #100 from Fedora Update System ---
kronosnet-1.4-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Tes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
--- Comment #99 from Fedora Update System ---
kronosnet-1.4-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
--- Comment #98 from Fedora Update System ---
kronosnet-1.4-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-6280026399
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
--- Comment #97 from Fedora Update System ---
kronosnet-1.4-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-b4cad12543
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list fo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
--- Comment #95 from Fedora Update System ---
kronosnet-1.1-8.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Test
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #94 from Fed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
--- Comment #93 from Fedora Update System ---
kronosnet-1.1-8.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-603c1c93cf
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
--- Comment #92 from Fedora Update System ---
kronosnet-1.1-8.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-94bdc0ccfb
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list fo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|POST|MODIFIED
--
You are receiving
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
--- Comment #91 from Fedora Update System ---
kronosnet-1.1-8.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-6eae0c4a51
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list fo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
--- Comment #90 from Gwyn Ciesla ---
(fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/kronosnet
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
--- Comment #89 from digimer ---
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/5210
Note that I had to use the deprecated call (fedrepo-req kronosnet -t 1507103)
as this:
fedpkg request-repo 1507103
Errored with:
Could not execute re
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
--- Comment #88 from digimer ---
I've been away for work this last week, but I am returning later today.
Finishing this process is my first ToDo.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always noti
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
--- Comment #87 from Jan Friesse ---
@digimer:
Because fedora-review is now set to +, it should be possible to follow
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Add_Package_to_Source_Code_Management_.28SCM.29_system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
Jan Friesse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
--- Comment #85 from digimer ---
Removed the 'pkgconfig()' method of handling BuildRequires.
New .spec and srpm:
https://www.alteeve.com/an-repo/files/packages/kronosnet.spec.1.1-8
https://www.alteeve.com/an-repo/files/packages/kronosnet-1.1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
--- Comment #84 from Fabio Massimo Di Nitto ---
(In reply to Jan Pokorný from comment #83)
> There's a misunderstanding, "%files -n libknet1-devel" comment should
> stay where it was in 1.1.4.
>
> I was asking for a new one to explain the in
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
--- Comment #83 from Jan Pokorný ---
[the review shifts behind my back, not keen on fighting the mills,
I am not an unprofessional rational-processes-bending person, just
my responses and thank you for your work so far]
There's a misunderstan
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
--- Comment #82 from digimer ---
Thanks, Remi.
To add a reference; The rhbz related to the -6 change to 'BuildRequire' is
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1552431.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list f
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
Remi Collet changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fed...@famillecollet.com
--- Comment #8
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
--- Comment #80 from digimer ---
Fixed comments.
As an aside for later; When talking to people on #fedora-devel, it was
recommended *not* to use 'BuildRequires: pkgconfig(x)', despite the package
guidelines recommending it, as it is more ambi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
--- Comment #79 from digimer ---
I applied the changes and hit an odd build error against just epel7 on x86_64
pulling in an unexpected RPM on koji. Bumped again from 1.1-5 to -6 to add a
version restriction to deal with it. Diff against -4 to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
Chris Feist changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|jpoko...@redhat.com |jfrie...@redhat.com
--
You are receivi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
--- Comment #78 from digimer ---
> Free-form implementation of
>
>> - comment above "%debug_package" that it is not relevant for
>> Fedora and its removal is pending [there]
>
> per [comment 73] is still missing.
Did I misunderstand? I a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
--- Comment #77 from Jan Pokorný ---
Oh, and one more nit, %check might have contained, commented out,
something actually usable for said quick check of the basic
functionality. In case it would be desired in spite of the
mentioned concerns.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
--- Comment #76 from Jan Pokorný ---
Thanks to everyone involved, also for patience; I understand that
time as a main metric might be preferred to overall quality, but
I tried to explain the significance of the latter for the wider
"package co
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
--- Comment #75 from digimer ---
There has been a lot of back and forth, but I think I got most of it. Please
review and let me know if anything is still overlooked/outstanding.
New .spec and srpm:
https://www.alteeve.com/an-repo/files/packag
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
--- Comment #74 from Fabio Massimo Di Nitto ---
(In reply to Jan Pokorný from comment #73)
> Ok, if the expectations are set like this, meaning that the future
> obstacles I was worried about -- mostly related to parallel pkgconfig
> files as
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
--- Comment #73 from Jan Pokorný ---
Ok, if the expectations are set like this, meaning that the future
obstacles I was worried about -- mostly related to parallel pkgconfig
files as their names form de facto inter-dependencies parallel of
API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
--- Comment #72 from Fabio Massimo Di Nitto ---
(In reply to Jan Pokorný from comment #71)
> Ok, the same argument can be applied to implicit versioning of
> subpackages (BuildRequires: libknet-devel%{?_isa} < 2.0), why
> do you want to treat
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
--- Comment #71 from Jan Pokorný ---
Ok, the same argument can be applied to implicit versioning of
subpackages (BuildRequires: libknet-devel%{?_isa} < 2.0), why
do you want to treat these two things (subpackages and respective
pkgconfig files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
--- Comment #70 from Fabio Massimo Di Nitto ---
(In reply to Jan Pokorný from comment #69)
> But the client programs will likely use the pkgconfig dependency in the
> build setup, and that has to be differentiated eventually in case it
> cares
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
--- Comment #69 from Jan Pokorný ---
But the client programs will likely use the pkgconfig dependency in the
build setup, and that has to be differentiated eventually in case it
cares about the protocol version.
> PKG_CHECK_MODULES(DBUS, libk
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
--- Comment #68 from Fabio Massimo Di Nitto ---
>
> Btw. I am still thinking how the future protocol bumps will work out,
> shouldn't the pkgconfig file contain the versioning in its name
> as well (see dbus, glib, etc.)? If so, it would be
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
--- Comment #67 from Jan Pokorný ---
> Not sure, we received the patch from the Suse maintainers, asking
> explicitly to enable it. Given that it didn´t affect Fedora I didn´t
> feel the need to investigate further.
>
> Probably the OBS is no
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
--- Comment #66 from Fabio Massimo Di Nitto ---
(In reply to Jan Pokorný from comment #65)
> [re A.]
>
> > The debuginfo generation is default: on in fedora. Those statements
> > have no effect on fedora unless explicitly overridden. Those ar
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
--- Comment #65 from Jan Pokorný ---
[re A.]
> The debuginfo generation is default: on in fedora. Those statements
> have no effect on fedora unless explicitly overridden. Those are
> coming from upstream spec file that requires tuning to bui
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
--- Comment #64 from Fabio Massimo Di Nitto ---
(In reply to Jan Pokorný from comment #63)
> > Because it´s impossible to follow those jumps
>
> Really? Enumerating separate points was to prevent any confusion.
Yes really.
>
> > you do ar
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
Jan Pokorný changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(jpokorny@redhat.c |
|om)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
Fabio Massimo Di Nitto changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(jpokorny@redhat.c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
Jan Pokorný changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(jpokorny@redhat.c |
|om)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
--- Comment #60 from Fabio Massimo Di Nitto ---
> > I. possible overlinking reported by rpmlint:
> >
> > > libknet1.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
> > > /usr/lib64/libknet.so.1.1.0 /lib64/libm.so.6
>
> which version of the packa
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
Fabio Massimo Di Nitto changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(jpokorny@redhat.c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
Jan Pokorný changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(jpokorny@redhat.c |
|om)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
--- Comment #57 from Jan Pokorný ---
>> Some concerns that remain:
>>
>> A. [Comment 28] 4.: no reason to mangle with debuginfo generation
>> - one can always use command-line switches to achieve the same:
>> http://lists.rpm.org/pipermail/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
Fabio Massimo Di Nitto changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(jpokorny@redhat.c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
Jan Pokorný changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|POST|ASSIGNED
Assignee|jfrie...@redh
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
--- Comment #54 from Jan Pokorný ---
Re macros in %changelog:
Common way of escaping that convey what was meant down the road
(e.g. to rpm -q --changelog query) is to use doubled '%', i.e.,
%{_isa} -> %%{_isa}, not to drop the per cent charac
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
Jan Friesse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
--
You are receiving this mail be
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
Jan Friesse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--
You are receiving th
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
--- Comment #53 from Jan Friesse ---
Package is ok to go into Fedora.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Pa
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
Fabio Massimo Di Nitto changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|jpoko...@redhat.com |jfrie...@redhat.com
--
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
--- Comment #52 from digimer ---
Fixed.
New .spec and srpm:
https://www.alteeve.com/an-repo/files/packages/kronosnet.spec.1.1-3
https://www.alteeve.com/an-repo/files/packages/kronosnet-1.1-3.fc27.src.rpm
f26:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/k
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
--- Comment #51 from Jan Friesse ---
@digimer:
Perfect, looks really nice, and good work with packaging latest version.
I've just noticed one small problem - again with changelog - and it's using of
macros in the changelog. This is problem, b
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
--- Comment #50 from digimer ---
Slight change as per upstream comment to make 'systemd' build dep in the
kronosnetd conditional.
New .spec and srpm:
https://www.alteeve.com/an-repo/files/packages/kronosnet.spec.1.1-2
https://www.alteeve.com/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
--- Comment #49 from digimer ---
Rerolled for the new 1.1 release.
New .spec and srpm:
https://www.alteeve.com/an-repo/files/packages/kronosnet.spec.1.1-1
https://www.alteeve.com/an-repo/files/packages/kronosnet-1.1-1.fc27.src.rpm
f26:
https
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
--- Comment #48 from digimer ---
Updated to add the missing change log.
New .spec and srpm:
https://www.alteeve.com/an-repo/files/packages/kronosnet.spec.1.0-10
https://www.alteeve.com/an-repo/files/packages/kronosnet-1.0-10.fc27.src.rpm
f26
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
--- Comment #47 from digimer ---
That's the second time I missed that... >_<.
I'll roll a final RPM today/tonight with the change log updated.
Madi
--
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=1507103
--- Comment #46 from Jan Friesse ---
@digimer:
Perfect. Spec file now looks really great with one small nitpick - changelog is
not updated. Please keep that in mind, I believe you also find useful when
package has good changelog.
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
--- Comment #45 from digimer ---
Sorry for the delay.
Changes made (tarball from release, license and systed_requires).
New .spec and srpm:
https://www.alteeve.com/an-repo/files/packages/kronosnet.spec.1.0-9
https://www.alteeve.com/an-repo/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
--- Comment #44 from Jan Friesse ---
@digimer:
Also please use official release from http://www.kronosnet.org/releases in
srpm, not something else (as is the case now). Checksum then differs.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are o
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
--- Comment #43 from Jan Friesse ---
@digimer:
- Postun is on correct location, no worries
- "%preun -n kronosnetd" is also corrent
- But %{?systemd_requires} is not on correct location. It basically expands to:
```
Requires(post): syste
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
--- Comment #42 from digimer ---
Speaking to Fabio, and given the way the comment around 'pkgconfig()' was
framed, I rolled back the BuildRequires for bzip2.
New .spec and srpm:
https://www.alteeve.com/an-repo/files/packages/kronosnet.spec.1.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
--- Comment #41 from digimer ---
This is the change that breaks EPEL7;
-BuildRequires: bzip2-devel
+BuildRequires: pkgconfig(bzip2)
If I roll that back, it builds fine on RHEL 7. With the 'pkgconfig(bzip2)', I
get this:
[root@el7-build
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
--- Comment #40 from digimer ---
> You've forgot to update changelog
Doh! Added (for 1.0-6 and -7)
> As was noted in previous comment, please add postun
Added, but please verify I added in the correct location.
> Please fix the "%preun -n
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
--- Comment #39 from Jan Friesse ---
@digimer:
- You've forgot to update changelog
- For kronosnetd:
* As was noted in previous comment, please add postun
```
%postun -n kronosnetd
%systemd_postun kronosnetd.service
```
*
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
--- Comment #38 from digimer ---
> - Please remove %defattr(-,root,root,-) everywhere
Done.
> - For kronosnetd:
> * Requires(preun): shadow-utils <-- not needed
What about the (postrun) entry? I've left that for now.
> * groupadd --forc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
--- Comment #37 from Jan Friesse ---
@digimer:
Forgot one more thing. We need more %{_isa}. Just add them basically for every
Requires: libtap1
and
Requires: libknet1
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
--- Comment #36 from Jan Friesse ---
@digimer:
From my point of view, package is almost ready to pass all the required test,
but there are still few left:
- Please remove %defattr(-,root,root,-) everywhere
- For kronosnetd:
* Requires(preu
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
--- Comment #35 from digimer ---
I think I have integrated the comments, save for the last one in comment #34
for "buildrequire". I'm not sure what you are referring to, specifically. If I
can get clarification on that, or missed anything, ple
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
--- Comment #34 from Jan Friesse ---
@digimer:
Few more comments to kronosned section.
It's now safe to expect systemd_post to exists so it's better to follow
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Systemd#Packaging, so for knet it
means:
-
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
Jan Friesse changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jfrie...@redhat.com
--- Comment #33 fro
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
--- Comment #32 from digimer ---
Any comments from upstream on comment #30 or the latest RPMs?
--
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=1507103
--- Comment #31 from digimer ---
I've rolled a new RPM to address the rawhide / gcc8 issue. I also updated the
project description.
New .spec and srpm:
https://www.alteeve.com/an-repo/files/packages/kronosnet.spec.1.0-4
https://www.alteeve.co
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
--- Comment #30 from Jan Pokorný ---
1. Ah, I see, there's a little misunderstanding here, we indeed polemized
about "--%{?with_sctp:en}%{!?with_sctp:dis}able-libknet-sctp}", but
the disagreement did not cover
> %{?with_sctp:--enable-
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
--- Comment #29 from digimer ---
1. Yes, I left it as it was based on Chrissie's (strong) comments, and that it
is easier to read on first pass.
2. Fabio confirmed that the licenses I entered are OK with him. Does this
address the license con
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
--- Comment #28 from Jan Pokorný ---
Looking at
https://www.alteeve.com/an-repo/files/packages/kronosnet.spec.1.0-3
1. I don't see any change about the clumsy conditionals
(is it what was meant with "I left the original"?)
2. you are right
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
Jan Pokorný changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nob...@fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103
--- Comment #27 from digimer ---
Upstream is fixing the rawhide issue (gcc8 v gcc7)
--
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=1507103
Fabio Massimo Di Nitto changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Review Request: kronosnet - |Review Request: kronosnet -
87 matches
Mail list logo
