https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671571
--- Comment #44 from Fedora Update System ---
playerctl-2.0.2-2.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 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=1671571
--- Comment #43 from Fedora Update System ---
playerctl-2.0.2-2.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 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=1671571
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671571
--- Comment #41 from Fedora Update System ---
playerctl-2.0.2-2.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://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671571
--- Comment #40 from Fedora Update System ---
playerctl-2.0.2-2.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671571
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #39 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671571
--- Comment #38 from Fedora Update System ---
playerctl-2.0.2-2.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-4249741e9d
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671571
--- Comment #37 from Fedora Update System ---
playerctl-2.0.2-2.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-1bac0790b1
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671571
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--- Comment #36 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671571
--- Comment #35 from Gwyn Ciesla ---
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/playerctl
--
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=1671571
--- Comment #34 from Tony Crisci ---
Thanks for helping me get my software out there. It's a privilege to be in the
repo. If you have problems with upstream down the line, send me an email or
open an issue on github.
--
You are receiving
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671571
Dridi Boukelmoune changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(dridi.boukelmoune |fedora-review+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671571
Justin W. Flory changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(dridi.boukelmoune
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671571
Dridi Boukelmoune changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(dridi.boukelmoune |
|@gmail.com)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671571
Justin W. Flory changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(dridi.boukelmoune
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671571
Dridi Boukelmoune changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(dridi.boukelmoune |
|@gmail.com)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671571
Justin W. Flory changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(dridi.boukelmoune
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671571
--- Comment #27 from Neal Gompa ---
> %package devel
> Summary:Development libraries and header files for %{name}
> Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
>
>
> %package docs
> Summary:Documentation related
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671571
--- Comment #26 from Dridi Boukelmoune ---
Yes and no. The guidelines ask to do this in the review request description,
and then they only say to post a comment with the new URLs if you update the
spec as per the review.
I also confirmed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671571
--- Comment #25 from Fabio Valentini ---
I think for fedora-review to pick up the links correctly, you need to adhere to
this format (as given in the fedora-review bugzilla template).
SPEC URL: ...
SRPM URL: ...
--
You are receiving this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671571
Dridi Boukelmoune changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(dridi.boukelmoune |
|@gmail.com)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671571
Justin W. Flory changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(dridi.boukelmoune
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671571
Dridi Boukelmoune changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(dridi.boukelmoune |
|@gmail.com)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671571
--- Comment #21 from Justin W. Flory ---
Hi, any updates? I am hoping to write a Fedora Magazine article this month
about playerctl and another package recently made available in Fedora, so it
will help to move this review along.
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671571
Justin W. Flory changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(dridi.boukelmoune
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671571
--- Comment #19 from Neal Gompa ---
(In reply to Dridi Boukelmoune from comment #18)
>
> Now there are a few things I'm not too happy with in this spec at a single
> glance:
>
> The main package should not need to require the -libs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671571
Dridi Boukelmoune changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(dridi.boukelmoune |
|@gmail.com)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671571
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||domi...@greysector.net
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671571
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review+ |
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671571
Justin W. Flory changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(dridi.boukelmoune
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671571
--- Comment #15 from Justin W. Flory ---
I misunderstood the packaging guidelines. I do not need a sponsor since I
already submitted a package to Fedora. If there is no additional feedback,
could someone set the fedora-review flag?
--
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671571
--- Comment #14 from Justin W. Flory ---
I see, thanks for the pointers. Addressed in this commit [1]. SRPM [2], Koji
builds [3][4], and COPR [5] with it.
What is the next step to move forward with this package?
---
[1]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671571
--- Comment #13 from Neal Gompa ---
> %{_datadir}/gir-1.0/Playerctl-2.0.gir
This belongs in the devel subpackage, since this is used by
gobject-introspection to generate bindings.
> %{_libdir}/girepository-1.0/Playerctl-2.0.typelib
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671571
--- Comment #12 from Justin W. Flory ---
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #11)
> Also, to point out: static libraries do not require the main package, they
> require the devel package to be useful.
Thanks Neal. I pushed a new commit [1]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671571
Neal Gompa changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ngomp...@gmail.com
--- Comment #10 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671571
--- Comment #11 from Neal Gompa ---
Also, to point out: static libraries do not require the main package, they
require the devel package to be useful.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671571
--- Comment #9 from Justin W. Flory ---
(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #7)
> It's not. You just forgot to remove the corresponding entry from the %files
> section - and now it can't find the file that you removed - that's all.
(In
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671571
Dridi Boukelmoune changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|dridi.boukelmo...@gmail.com
--
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671571
--- Comment #8 from Dridi Boukelmoune ---
Justin, a static library is not code you run, but code you (statically) link to
as part of a build process, that's why I moved it to the -devel sub-package. It
could have also lived in a -static
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671571
--- Comment #7 from Fabio Valentini ---
> (In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #5)
> > Just some small comments from a Packaging Committee member:
> >
> > - Please don't include static libraries, unless *absolutely necessary*.
> > In
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671571
--- Comment #6 from Justin W. Flory ---
I pushed a new commit [1] to address the above feedback. The build completed
successfully in Koji [2][3] and COPR [4].
(In reply to Dridi Boukelmoune from comment #4)
> The xz archive is handled just
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671571
Fabio Valentini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||decatho...@gmail.com
--- Comment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671571
Dridi Boukelmoune changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671571
--- Comment #3 from Justin W. Flory ---
Hi Dridi, thanks for the feedback. I pushed a new commit [1] to my RPM spec
based on your feedback.
(In reply to Dridi Boukelmoune from comment #1)
> I can't sponsor you, but I will do the formal
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671571
--- Comment #2 from Dridi Boukelmoune ---
Also don't bother with %epoch unless one day upstream breaks the upgrade path.
See the guidelines:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_requiring_base_package
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671571
Dridi Boukelmoune changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dridi.boukelmo...@gmail.com
---
46 matches
Mail list logo
