https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1510877
Jakub Jančo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1510877
--- Comment #23 from Fedora End Of Life ---
This message is a reminder that Fedora 26 is nearing its end of life.
Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining
and issuing updates for Fedora 26.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1510877
--- Comment #22 from Gwyn Ciesla ---
(fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-LMDB_File
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1510877
--- Comment #21 from Jakub Jančo ---
There is still not component in Bugzilla to fill ExcludeArch bugs.
Adding koji build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=23263944
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1510877
Jakub Jančo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||177841
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1510877
Richard W.M. Jones changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1510877
--- Comment #19 from Petr Pisar ---
I looked at the sources. The situation is this:
LICENSE: Artistic 2.0 text
lib/LMDB_File.pm: Artistic 2.0
ppport.h: GPL+ or Artistic
README:GPL+ or
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1510877
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jančo ---
(In reply to Richard W.M. Jones from comment #15)
> [?]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
> Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1510877
--- Comment #17 from Richard W.M. Jones ---
Please comment on the License field. Everything else looks fine.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1510877
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jančo ---
(In reply to Richard W.M. Jones from comment #15)
> [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
>
> RWMJ: There is an ExclusiveArch tag with a comment. Please submit the
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1510877
--- Comment #15 from Richard W.M. Jones ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Header files in -devel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1510877
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jančo ---
(In reply to Petr Pisar from comment #12)
> And another option is to pass NO_PERLLOCAL=1 argument to perl Makefile.PL
> and use the %make_install. See
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1510877
--- Comment #13 from Richard W.M. Jones ---
Can you post a link to the new spec file & SRPM, in the same format
as comment 0, so that fedora-review can pick it up.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1510877
--- Comment #12 from Petr Pisar ---
(In reply to Petr Pisar from comment #11)
> (In reply to Jakub Jančo from comment #10)
> > Thanks, I fixed all except:
> >
> > (In reply to Petr Pisar from comment #2)
> > > Also the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1510877
--- Comment #11 from Petr Pisar ---
(In reply to Jakub Jančo from comment #10)
> Thanks, I fixed all except:
>
> (In reply to Petr Pisar from comment #2)
> > Also the "%exclude
> > %{perl_archlib}/perllocal.pod" should be
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1510877
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jančo ---
Thanks, I fixed all except:
(In reply to Petr Pisar from comment #2)
> Also the "%exclude
> %{perl_archlib}/perllocal.pod" should be unnecessary.
error: Installed (but unpackaged)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1510877
--- Comment #9 from Richard W.M. Jones ---
I ran ‘fedora-review -b 1510877’ on a Rawhide host.
--
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=1510877
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jančo ---
Could you post me how do you run rpmlint and package review on my package
please? Because I cant reproduce your output from rpmlint and package review.
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1510877
--- Comment #7 from Richard W.M. Jones ---
I don't understand what the previous comment means.
Anyway if you update the package with all changes needed so
far, then I will re-review it.
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1510877
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jančo ---
(In reply to Richard W.M. Jones from comment #4)
> rpmlint output is:
(In reply to Richard W.M. Jones from comment #5)
> Package review says:
How do you run these tools please? I run
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1510877
--- Comment #5 from Richard W.M. Jones ---
Package review says:
- Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:.
Note: Explicit dependency on perl-devel is not allowed
See:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1510877
--- Comment #4 from Richard W.M. Jones ---
rpmlint output is:
Checking: perl-LMDB_File-0.12-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm
perl-LMDB_File-debuginfo-0.12-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1510877
--- Comment #3 from Petr Pisar ---
Could you please declare dependencies on all used Perl modules in Makefile.PL
(strict, Config; ExtUtils::Constant or File::Copy and File::Spec)?
The same applies to modules used when
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1510877
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppi...@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1510877
--- Comment #1 from Richard W.M. Jones ---
I think you either need to now or will need to in the future file
bugs about the failures on !64 bit and ppc64*, see:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1510877
Richard W.M. Jones changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
26 matches
Mail list logo