https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913870
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913870
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #29 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913870
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |MODIFIED
--- Comment #28 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913870
--- Comment #27 from Gwyn Ciesla ---
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/qvge
--
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=1913870
Otto Urpelainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|ti.eug...@gmail.com |otu...@iki.fi
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913870
--- Comment #26 from Otto Urpelainen ---
Oh, probably related to the fact that this bug was unassigned through the whole
review. It should have been assigned to me. I will comment to releng ticket.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913870
--- Comment #25 from Eugene A. Pivnev ---
(In reply to Otto Urpelainen from comment #24)
> Thank you Eugene! The review took quite many rounds, but the package now
> looks good to me. Review passed. You can now request a dist-git repository
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913870
Otto Urpelainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ti.eug...@gmail.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913870
Eugene A. Pivnev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(ti.eugene@gmail.c |
|om)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913870
--- Comment #22 from Otto Urpelainen ---
I noticed that upstream has already merged the fix for licenses path that used
multiple project_license entries [1]. On the other front, my pull request to
appstream-glib to validate that multiples are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913870
Otto Urpelainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(ti.eugene@gmail.c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913870
Eugene A. Pivnev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(ti.eugene@gmail.c |
|om)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913870
--- Comment #19 from Otto Urpelainen ---
The licensing issues I still have:
1. It really should be "MIT and LGPLv3 and BSD", without splitting it with
parenthesis. The crucial question is: What license(s) apply to binary qvgeapp?
The answer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913870
Otto Urpelainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(ti.eugene@gmail.c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913870
Eugene A. Pivnev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(ti.eugene@gmail.c |
|om)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913870
--- Comment #16 from Ben Beasley ---
Thanks for taking the review.
-
> I think the License should be "(MIT and LGPLv3 and BSD)". The licensing
> guidelines are not crystal clear on this, but I read them as a) no
> parenthesis:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913870
Otto Urpelainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review?
|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913870
--- Comment #14 from Otto Urpelainen ---
Thank you Eugene, it is looking better!
There is a small mistake, the file you link to is not srpm but binary rpm. I
got the srpm from your Koji build to get fedora-review running. More comments
to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913870
--- Comment #13 from Eugene A. Pivnev ---
(In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #12)
> I think I’m done commenting here unless there’s a new, concrete question I
> can answer, or an updated submission for review.
Thank you for advices.
As I
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913870
--- Comment #12 from Ben Beasley ---
> This was not discussed because Fedora/EPEL repos have no appropriate packages
> and I have no plan to package them (see my note №1)
There’s no need to argue with me; I didn’t write the guidelines.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913870
--- Comment #11 from Eugene A. Pivnev ---
(In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #10)
Ok, let's go:
> 1. Upstream does not support building with an external copy of the
> dependency. If it did, you would NOT be permitted to bundle, no
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913870
--- Comment #10 from Ben Beasley ---
Please re-read the guidelines around bundled dependencies carefully; I think
you have some misunderstandings.
When you bundle dependencies, Fedora doesn’t require you to install the bundled
dependencies
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913870
Eugene A. Pivnev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(ti.eugene@gmail.c |
|om)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913870
--- Comment #8 from Otto Urpelainen ---
So two possible reviewers, great! Let us say, in case Eugene is still
interested and resolves the initial issues, the first to set the flag gets to
review.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913870
--- Comment #7 from Ben Beasley ---
I was prepared to set the fedora-review flag and start the review if the
submitter resolved the initial issues—but I am also just as happy for someone
else to pick it up.
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913870
Otto Urpelainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||otu...@iki.fi
Flags|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913870
--- Comment #4 from c...@musicinmybrain.net ---
> As for src/3rdParty/ - there are parts of old, forgotten projects compiled-in
> statically.
> And I think there is no sense to package them separately.
You still need to follow the guidelines
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913870
--- Comment #3 from Eugene A. Pivnev ---
(In reply to code from comment #1)
Licences and desktop files fixed.
SPEC: https://tieugene.fedorapeople.org/rpms/qvge/qvge.spec
SRPM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913870
--- Comment #2 from Eugene A. Pivnev ---
(In reply to code from comment #1)
> This is not a full review, just a few things I saw at first glance.
Thank you, I'm working on it.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913870
c...@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||c...@musicinmybrain.net
30 matches
Mail list logo
