https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758
--- Comment #56 from Fedora Update System ---
trader-7.11-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on t
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758
--- Comment #55 from Fedora Update System ---
trader-7.11-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on t
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758
--- Comment #54 from Fedora Update System ---
trader-7.11-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758
--- Comment #52 from John Zaitseff ---
(In reply to Jason Tibbitts from comment #51)
> You don't need to CC this ticket on updates made to your package after the
> initial release.
True, but this was done automatically: the initial package had
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758
--- Comment #51 from Jason Tibbitts ---
You don't need to CC this ticket on updates made to your package after the
initial release.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about chan
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758
--- Comment #50 from Fedora Update System ---
trader-7.11-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758
--- Comment #49 from Fedora Update System ---
trader-7.11-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758
--- Comment #48 from Fedora Update System ---
trader-7.11-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing fo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|CLOSED |ON_QA
Resolution|ERRATA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758
--- Comment #45 from Fedora Update System ---
trader-7.10-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #44 from Fedo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758
--- Comment #43 from Fedora Update System ---
trader-7.10-2.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-1e4cce6a22
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC li
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |MODIFIED
--
You are receiving
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758
--- Comment #42 from Fedora Update System ---
trader-7.10-2.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-132cea1f3a
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC li
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758
--- Comment #41 from Fedora Update System ---
trader-7.10-2.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing fo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758
--- Comment #40 from Fedora Update System ---
trader-7.10-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing fo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #39 from Fedo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758
--- Comment #38 from Fedora Update System ---
trader-7.10-2.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-2d2cc6027d
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for t
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758
--- Comment #37 from Fedora Update System ---
trader-7.10-2.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-697e3c9cea
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for t
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--
You are receiving
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758
--- Comment #36 from Fedora Update System ---
trader-7.10-2.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-59d8832418
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for t
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758
--- Comment #35 from John Zaitseff ---
(In reply to Tom "spot" Callaway from comment #34)
> Hopefully that makes sense. :)
It does, thanks! The linked instructions said "Update Your Branches (if
desired)" (section title); your instructions ma
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758
--- Comment #34 from Tom "spot" Callaway ---
(In reply to John Zaitseff from comment #33)
> I've imported the sources and done a "fedpkg build" as per the
> documentation. Is there anything more I need to do for this review request?
A few thi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758
--- Comment #33 from John Zaitseff ---
I've imported the sources and done a "fedpkg build" as per the documentation.
Is there anything more I need to do for this review request?
The documentation at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_pac
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758
--- Comment #32 from Gwyn Ciesla ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/trader
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about change
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758
Tom "spot" Callaway changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |
--- Comment #31 from Tom "spot"
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758
--- Comment #30 from John Zaitseff ---
Thank you very much, Tom! At last we make progress :-)
My FAS username is "zaitseff".
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes t
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758
Tom "spot" Callaway changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nob...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758
--- Comment #28 from John Zaitseff ---
I am not sure why I never received comment 27. I apologise: life has been
extremely busy the past year, but I am able to get back to this package.
To answer concerns in comment 27 and 22, I have added a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758
Ben Rosser changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||1364745
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzil
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758
Ben Rosser changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rosser@gmail.com
--- Comment #27 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758
William Moreno changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|williamjmore...@gmail.com |
Assignee|williamjmore...@gma
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758
John Zaitseff changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(j.zaits...@zap.or |
|g.au)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758
William Moreno changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||j.zaits...@zap.org.au
Flag
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758
Tom "spot" Callaway changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tcall...@redhat.com
Bl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758
--- Comment #23 from John Zaitseff ---
Adding a .desktop file and a .xml.appdata file are probably good ideas. I'll
try to do so in the near future, although I hope it won't hold up the inclusion
of the current package (given these are optiona
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758
William Moreno changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||182235 (FE-Legal)
--- Comment #22 fro
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758
--- Comment #21 from John Zaitseff ---
(In reply to William Moreno from comment #18)
> # Author: John Zaitseff
>
> There is not need to put you as author for the same reason than be do not
> use the Packager tag in rpm spes, it is very clear
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758
--- Comment #20 from John Zaitseff ---
(In reply to William Moreno from comment #17)
> # This file is distributed under the same licence as Star Traders itself:
> # the GNU General Public License, version 3 or later.
>
> Not, you can not, spec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758
William Moreno changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|williamjmore...@gmail.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758
--- Comment #19 from John Zaitseff ---
(In reply to William Moreno from comment #16)
> I can take your review request to become a sponsor if you agree to do some
> informal reviews.
Absolutely. Thank you for taking the time to make your comme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758
--- Comment #18 from William Moreno ---
# Author: John Zaitseff
There is not need to put you as author for the same reason than be do not use
the Packager tag in rpm spes, it is very clear than you are the author of the
spec looking at your c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758
--- Comment #17 from William Moreno ---
# This file is distributed under the same licence as Star Traders itself:
# the GNU General Public License, version 3 or later.
Not, you can not, specs are software for the FPCA
https://fedoraproject.or
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758
William Moreno changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||williamjmore...@gmail.com
--- Comment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758
Michael Schwendt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Flags|fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758
Miroslav Suchý changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msu...@redhat.com
Assignee|ti
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758
--- Comment #13 from John Zaitseff ---
Unfortunately, I have not heard anything from Jason Tibbitts since 2012. His
comments have certainly been helpful, but I'm wondering whether he is MIA.
Could someone else be reassigned this bug?
I have
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758
Christopher Meng changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ti...@math.uh.edu
Flags|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758
--- Comment #12 from John Zaitseff ---
For some reason, both I and others have let this packaging request remain
unresolved. Could someone please include this simple game as part of Fedora.
The latest version is available at:
Spec URL: ftp:/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758
--- Comment #11 from John Zaitseff ---
Given that gperf(1) MIGHT be needed (depending on timestamps), I've included it
as a build-time dependency.
I've posted the updated packages at:
Spec URL: ftp://ftp.zap.org.au/pub/trader/unix/binary/fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758
--- Comment #10 from Jason Tibbitts ---
Sorry for not responding sooner; I must have skipped right over your previous
two messages.
If there's any chance that gperf is needed, you should definitely add a build
dependency on it.
Can you post a b
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758
--- Comment #9 from John Zaitseff ---
Actually, the dependency on gperf(1) MIGHT be needed, depending on timestamps:
if any of the files lib/iconv_open-*.h appear to be older than the
corresponding lib/iconv_open-*.gperf, then gperf will be calle
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758
--- Comment #8 from John Zaitseff ---
After months of being out of Internet access , I'm back and able to work on
Star Traders...
I have simplified the RPM spec file per Jason Tibbitts' suggestions; it is now
available at: ftp://ftp.zap.org.au/p
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758
--- Comment #7 from Jason Tibbitts ---
It's no problem. I'll be out of the country in a couple of weeks as well.
This ticket isn't going anywhere.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758
--- Comment #6 from John Zaitseff ---
Thank you, Jason, for your detailed comments: I do appreciate them!
Unfortunately, you've caught me at a bad time: I will be overseas and out of
e-mail/web contact for almost seven weeks, starting from a few
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758
--- Comment #5 from Jason Tibbitts ---
By the way, if I were to submit this, the spec would look something like the
following, which is about as simple as a spec can get for a package with
translations:
http://www.math.uh.edu/~tibbs/rpms/trader.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758
Jason Tibbitts changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nob...@fedo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758
--- Comment #3 from John Zaitseff 2012-05-09 09:13:39
EDT ---
I have released Star Traders 7.4, and created RPMs for Fedora 16:
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758
--- Comment #2 from John Zaitseff 2012-04-16 04:58:29
EDT ---
To possibly preempt some comments on trader.spec:
1. The file is
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758
John Zaitseff changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
62 matches
Mail list logo
