https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2043940
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2043940
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-46ba30bcad has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --re
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2043940
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #13 from Fed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2043940
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|POST|MODIFIED
--- Comment #12 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2043940
--- Comment #11 from Gwyn Ciesla ---
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/plasma-nano
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and comp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2043940
Justin Zobel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
--- Comment #10 from Justin Zobel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2043940
--- Comment #9 from Onuralp Sezer ---
New version added.
dir sections added for ownership problem.
license and doc section added. License part updated based on files I saw on
license folder It should be fine.
sed command still has to stay base
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2043940
Onuralp Sezer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review?
--
You are receiving
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2043940
Onuralp Sezer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED
Resolution|NOTABUG
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2043940
--- Comment #7 from Justin Zobel ---
Regarding the two that fail I have reported upstream @
https://invent.kde.org/plasma/plasma-nano/-/issues/5 so you can include that in
your comments in the file near the other validation.
--
You are rece
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2043940
--- Comment #6 from Justin Zobel ---
- Include the licenses folder in %files
- With regards to desktop-file-validate only 2 of the 4 fail, the others should
be able to be validated and the make note that the others have been reported
upstream
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2043940
Onuralp Sezer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||thunderbir...@gmail.com
--- Comment #
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2043940
Justin Zobel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #4 from Jus
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2043940
Justin Zobel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from Justin Zo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2043940
Justin Zobel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|justin.zo...@gmail.com
--
You are re
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2043940
--- Comment #2 from Justin Zobel ---
Also, the spec file and the spec in the srpm differ.
--
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:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2043940
Justin Zobel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(thunderbirdtr@fed
17 matches
Mail list logo