https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2066135
--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-27984cfba9 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are o
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2066135
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-27984cfba9 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing
--ad
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2066135
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-27984cfba9 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-27984cfba9
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2066135
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2066135
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|POST|MODIFIED
--- Comment #18 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2066135
--- Comment #17 from Gwyn Ciesla ---
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/m1n1
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about cha
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2066135
--- Comment #16 from Davide Cavalca ---
Thanks!
$ fedpkg request-repo m1n1 2066135
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/43146
--
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=2066135
Neal Gompa changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2066135
--- Comment #14 from Davide Cavalca ---
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/m1n1/m1n1.spec
SRPM URL:
https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/m1n1/m1n1-1.0.2-1.fc37.src.rpm
Changelog:
- drop GPLv2 from the license tag, as all G
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2066135
--- Comment #13 from Davide Cavalca ---
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/m1n1/m1n1.spec
SRPM URL:
https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/m1n1/m1n1-1.0.2-1.fc37.src.rpm
Changelog:
- document license breakdown
- add a couple
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2066135
--- Comment #12 from Neal Gompa ---
> Issues:
> ===
> - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
> BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
> Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires
> See: https
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2066135
--- Comment #11 from Neal Gompa ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
- If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires agai
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2066135
--- Comment #10 from Davide Cavalca ---
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/m1n1/m1n1.spec
SRPM URL:
https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/m1n1/m1n1-1.0.2-1.fc37.src.rpm
Changelog:
- add BR on adobe-source-code-pro-fonts and
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2066135
--- Comment #9 from Neal Gompa ---
We're missing some bundled() provides for the vendored libraries in m1n1.
From what I can see, there are at least a couple of libraries there...
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always noti
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2066135
--- Comment #8 from Davide Cavalca ---
I've changed my mind, let's keep this noarch and just drop the Recommends --
these are developer tools after all, and the error messages when stuff is
missing are pretty clear, so I think it's fine to let
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2066135
--- Comment #7 from Davide Cavalca ---
Oh, so maybe this does need to be arched after all. I know for sure
chainload.py needs gcc, and I think some of the other proxyclient utilities do
as well.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2066135
--- Comment #6 from Neal Gompa ---
> %ifarch aarch64
> Recommends: gcc
> %else
> Recommends: gcc-aarch64-linux-gnu
> %endif
> BuildArch: noarch
These are incompatible stanzas. You can't have archful conditionals in a noarch
packa
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2066135
--- Comment #5 from Davide Cavalca ---
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/m1n1/m1n1.spec
SRPM URL:
https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/m1n1/m1n1-1.0.2-1.fc37.src.rpm
Changelog:
- drop upstream artwork and use Fedora logos
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2066135
--- Comment #4 from Davide Cavalca ---
Put up https://pagure.io/fedora-logos/pull-request/21 and
https://pagure.io/generic-logos/pull-request/2 to get the necessary logos added
so we can use them here. The tools package is just python scripts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2066135
--- Comment #3 from Neal Gompa ---
Can the tools subpackage be noarch? Or is it arch specific?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
h
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2066135
--- Comment #2 from Neal Gompa ---
I think we probably don't want to use Asahi Linux artwork... Can you adjust
this to drop the artwork repo and use the stuff provided by fedora-logos and
generic-logos (for a Fedora build and a generic build)?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2066135
Neal Gompa changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review?
Doc Type|---
22 matches
Mail list logo
