https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1509679
--- Comment #30 from Fedora Update System ---
rofi-1.5.1-7.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1509679
--- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System ---
rofi-1.5.1-7.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 the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1509679
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1509679
--- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System ---
rofi-1.5.1-7.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing fo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1509679
--- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System ---
rofi-1.5.1-7.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 fo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1509679
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #25 from Fed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1509679
--- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System ---
rofi-1.5.1-7.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-d5ed05edc5
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for t
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1509679
--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System ---
rofi-1.5.1-7.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-d2694e59a8
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for t
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1509679
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--- Comment #22 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1509679
--- Comment #21 from Gwyn Ciesla ---
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rofi
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about chan
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1509679
--- Comment #20 from Till Hofmann ---
Thank you again for your detailed comments!
As you suggested, I removed *.md5 and *.map files and I ditched the shebang
scriptlet -- I thought the mangler would eventually fail instead of fixing
shebangs,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1509679
--- Comment #19 from Jan Pokorný ---
Hmm, just dropping *.md5 and *.map will save some 8 MB in -doc-devel
without any change in usability.
--
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=1509679
--- Comment #18 from Jan Pokorný ---
> For the sake of completeness, I'd suggest:
>
> s#/usr/bin/${interpreter}#%{_bindir}/${interpreter}#
>
> but is not a blocker here (note that possibly python* dealing in the same
> location in the spec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1509679
Jan Pokorný changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #17 from Jan
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1509679
--- Comment #16 from Till Hofmann ---
Spec URL: https://thofmann.fedorapeople.org/rofi.spec
SRPM URL: https://thofmann.fedorapeople.org/rofi-1.5.1-5.fc28.src.rpm
Thank you for the detailed analysis of the licensing of the generated files!
-
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1509679
--- Comment #15 from Jan Pokorný ---
> - there's an interesting situation regarding licensing, and I was
> surprised not seeing that discussed anywhere in Fedora context,
actually it was, and likewise it indicates this usage is fine:
https:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1509679
--- Comment #14 from Jan Pokorný ---
I think only these two points remain and I have nothing more
(in Fedora, there's apparently nothing like x-terminal-emulator,
older xdg initiative likely and sadly went nowhere as well:
https://lists.freede
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1509679
--- Comment #13 from Till Hofmann ---
Spec URL: https://thofmann.fedorapeople.org/rofi.spec
SRPM URL: https://thofmann.fedorapeople.org/rofi-1.5.1-4.fc28.src.rpm
Good suggestion, I renamed the doc sub-package to devel-doc.
--
You are receiv
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1509679
--- Comment #12 from Jan Pokorný ---
Hmm, it feels like rofi-doc should rather be something like
rofi-devel-doc since it's nothing like end user docs, but rather
the doxygen-generated extract from source code annotation.
There are prior examp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1509679
--- Comment #11 from Jan Pokorný ---
Good catch about the license file, everything else looks good, just let
me do the final dive.
Re bundled libraries: if there are no versions to practically relate
to, I wouldn't do anything more on that fr
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1509679
--- Comment #10 from Till Hofmann ---
Spec URL: https://thofmann.fedorapeople.org/rofi.spec
SRPM URL: https://thofmann.fedorapeople.org/rofi-1.5.1-3.fc28.src.rpm
I just realized I forgot the license file. Added it to all independently
install
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1509679
--- Comment #9 from Till Hofmann ---
Spec URL: https://thofmann.fedorapeople.org/rofi.spec
SRPM URL: https://thofmann.fedorapeople.org/rofi-1.5.1-2.fc28.src.rpm
- Move themes into a separate noarch sub-package
- Make doc sub-package noarch
-
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1509679
--- Comment #8 from Till Hofmann ---
(In reply to Jan Pokorný from comment #7)
> Just some debatable spots based on fedora-review results:
>
> - can the bundled libraries be related to particular versions?
Not really, as they do not have any
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1509679
--- Comment #7 from Jan Pokorný ---
Just some debatable spots based on fedora-review results:
- can the bundled libraries be related to particular versions?
- does it make sense to put themes to a separate noarch subpackage?
--
You are rece
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1509679
Jan Pokorný changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nob...@fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1509679
Till Hofmann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Whiteboard|NotReady|
--- Comment #5 from Till Hofmann ---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1509679
--- Comment #4 from Till Hofmann ---
Hi Jan,
a review swap sounds good, I can have a look at both your packages!
I'm a bit busy and currently travelling, but if you can wait a couple days,
I'll review them.
I'd also be interested in your swa
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1509679
Jan Pokorný changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jpoko...@redhat.com
--- Comment #3 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1509679
Till Hofmann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|CLOSED |NEW
Resolution|DUPLICATE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1509679
Igor Gnatenko changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1509679
Till Hofmann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Whiteboard||NotReady
--
You are receiving this ma
31 matches
Mail list logo