https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818401
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski domi...@greysector.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818401
--- Comment #62 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
0ad-0.0.13-1.fc19, 0ad-data-0.0.13-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19
stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this
bug
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818401
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|CURRENTRELEASE
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818401
--- Comment #60 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
0ad-0.0.13-1.fc17, 0ad-data-0.0.13-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17
stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this
bug
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818401
--- Comment #61 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
0ad-data-0.0.13-1.fc18, 0ad-0.0.13-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18
stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this
bug
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818401
--- Comment #57 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
0ad-data-0.0.13-1.fc18,0ad-0.0.13-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for
Fedora 18.
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818401
--- Comment #58 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
0ad-0.0.13-1.fc17,0ad-data-0.0.13-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for
Fedora 17.
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818401
--- Comment #59 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
0ad-0.0.13-1.fc19,0ad-data-0.0.13-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for
Fedora 19.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818401
MERCIER Jonathan bioinfornat...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818401
--- Comment #54 from Bruno Wolff III br...@wolff.to ---
Don't forget to add it as a member to the games group in comps. You can already
do it for rawhide. It should be also done for other releases as it makes it to
stable / updates.
Thanks for
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818401
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818401
--- Comment #56 from pcpa paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to comment #54)
Don't forget to add it as a member to the games group in comps. You can
already do it for rawhide. It should be also done for other releases as it
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818401
--- Comment #50 from pcpa paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to comment #46)
All my comments have been addressed. Approved.
But please during every rebase do licence check.
While making final adjustments I remembered I
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818401
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818401
--- Comment #51 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
0ad-0.0.11-3.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/0ad-0.0.11-3.fc16
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818401
--- Comment #52 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
0ad-0.0.11-3.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/0ad-0.0.11-3.fc17
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818401
--- Comment #53 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
0ad-0.0.11-3.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/0ad-0.0.11-3.fc18
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818401
--- Comment #46 from Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com ---
All my comments have been addressed. Approved.
But please during every rebase do licence check.
APPROVED
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818401
Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review+
--
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818401
--- Comment #47 from pcpa paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to comment #46)
All my comments have been addressed. Approved.
But please during every rebase do licence check.
APPROVED
Thanks. Ok, I will also make a comment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818401
pcpa paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818401
--- Comment #49 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com ---
Git done (by process-git-requests).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818401
--- Comment #45 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com ---
The License tag should reflect the binary package, not the SRPM, so this is
correct.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818401
--- Comment #41 from Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
C/C++
[x]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: MUST Package does not
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818401
--- Comment #42 from pcpa paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to comment #41)
Thanks for the review. I will upload a newer srpm tonight, but may
need some extra feedback also :-)
[...]
Issues:
[!]: MUST Package contains no
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818401
--- Comment #43 from Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com ---
ad bundled libraries: ok then.
So libAtlasUI.so is 0ad specific
and libCollada.so is fork with some differencies from old library and until
fcolladaCE is mature and upstream of 0ad will
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818401
--- Comment #44 from pcpa paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com ---
I could not log in http://trac.wildfiregames.com/login right now,
tried resetting password too, so did not make a suggestion of using
debian/copyright information in
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818401
--- Comment #36 from pcpa paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com ---
Updated to latest upstream alpha release:
Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pcpa/0ad.spec
SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pcpa/0ad-0.0.11-1.fc19.src.rpm
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818401
--- Comment #37 from Bruno Wolff III br...@wolff.to ---
Thanks for updating to alpha 11. It looks like it has lots of improvements over
alpha 10. Hopefully alpha 12 will have the AI performance fixed.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818401
Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818401
--- Comment #38 from Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com ---
rpmlint warning:
0ad.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pyrogenesis
Although, this is not blocker, but Debian has man page (written under GPLv2) so
you can use that.
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818401
--- Comment #39 from Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com ---
Oh, it should by just symlink to:
/usr/share/man/man1/pyrogenesis.1.gz - 0ad.1.gz
And more precise it should not be in group:
1 - Executable programs or shell commands
but in group
6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818401
--- Comment #40 from pcpa paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com ---
Thanks for the review!
Updated package:
- Corrected the manual page group
- Made a symlink from 0ad to pyrogenesis manual page
- Followed my own advice in comments and
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818401
--- Comment #33 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com ---
You may not ship any code in Fedora that implements S3TC. You will need to make
a clean source tarball that has any such code removed, it is not sufficient to
remove these sources at
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818401
--- Comment #34 from Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com ---
But that should not be problem. Simly manualy remove it from that tar.gz and
put in spec in comment before Source0 document what and how it was removed.
We will not be able to verify md5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818401
--- Comment #35 from pcpa paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com ---
Thanks for the comments. I remade the package for review request, and just
confirmed it works with fc17 and up to date rawhide. For rawhide, it required
to adapt a patch
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818401
pcpa paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On|823102, 823096 |
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818401
pcpa paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||823102
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818401
pcpa paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On||182235
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818401
--- Comment #30 from Bruno Wolff III br...@wolff.to ---
Alpha 11 should be due out any day now, and it looks like there are some
significant improvements. (I think gates are supposed to work now, which will
make walls more useful.)
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818401
Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818401
--- Comment #32 from pcpa paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to comment #31)
Just to be clear here, what question(s) are you asking of Fedora Legal?
Some comment about s3tc, and if just not building it is enough (and
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818401
--- Comment #27 from pcpa paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com ---
I am happy enough with the comment at http://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/1427
so, with nvtt disabled, it should be ok to have 0ad in fedora, not rpmfusion.
I will close the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818401
Bug 818401 depends on bug 823096, which changed state.
Bug 823096 Summary: Review Request: nvidia-texture-tools - Collection of image
processing and texture manipulation tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823096
What
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818401
--- Comment #24 from pcpa paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com ---
Patches were reported upstream as specified in #c8. The patch to disable nvtt
was not clearly stated as reported upstream in #c9, but was attached to the
related trac.
But now
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818401
--- Comment #25 from Bruno Wolff III br...@wolff.to ---
st3c isn't enabled in the Fedora version of mesa. Is having this enabled for 0
AD in rpmfusion going to help?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818401
--- Comment #26 from pcpa paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com ---
I asked for some upstream comment at http://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/1427
when providing a patch to disable nvtt. The patch appears to work and I did not
notice problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818401
--- Comment #23 from MERCIER Jonathan bioinfornat...@gmail.com ---
just to add every patch should be reported to the upstream
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818401
--- Comment #22 from Bruno Wolff III br...@wolff.to ---
Fair use is for copyright, not patents. And not all places have fair use as a
defense.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818401
--- Comment #21 from pcpa paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com ---
The option to build with nvtt disabled is not documented,
and need a patch to forward it to the premake lua script,
and also to not fail before.
I would also prefer to have
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818401
--- Comment #18 from MERCIER Jonathan bioinfornat...@gmail.com ---
if can to add the french desciption given in my spec file and create a
subpackage data as i do (take example) that is ok for me
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818401
--- Comment #19 from pcpa paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com ---
Ok. I have another review request, and actually updated it to
build in fedora 16 and 17, and rawhide, making it optional to
build with system nvtt or internal nvtt, and also
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818401
--- Comment #20 from Kalev Lember kalevlem...@gmail.com ---
Why rpmfusion? As I understand it, the issue that was blocking 0ad from Fedora
inclusion was s3tc patents; if the package works without nvidia-texture-tools,
can't this go to Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818401
MERCIER Jonathan bioinfornat...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818401
Kalev Lember kalevlem...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818401
--- Comment #15 from pcpa paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to comment #13)
They are since many time a spec for 0ad at
http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/bioinfornatics/0ad/
(not yet updated to latest release alpha X)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818401
--- Comment #16 from MERCIER Jonathan bioinfornat...@gmail.com ---
s3tc lib are in rpm-fusion if it is legal in your state
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818401
--- Comment #17 from pcpa paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com ---
You mean squish? Then would need to check if can use that instead of the
bundled version in nvidia-texture-tools.
Maybe the proper approach would be to just package 0ad in
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818401
--- Comment #10 from Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com ---
I just run fedora-review and this is issues sans those I waived out.
Issues:
[!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: defattr() present in %files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818401
--- Comment #11 from pcpa paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to comment #10)
I just run fedora-review and this is issues sans those I waived out.
Thanks for the review!
Issues:
[!]: MUST Each %files section contains
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818401
--- Comment #12 from pcpa paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com ---
I addressed the fedora-review issues, but the unversioned .so
in %{_libdir}/0ad. If this really needs to be rpmlint silent,
I can work on making a fake -devel package and
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818401
--- Comment #9 from pcpa paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com ---
Updated package
Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pcpa/0ad.spec
SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pcpa/0ad-r11863-2.fc18.src.rpm
- Disable dependency on
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=818401
--- Comment #2 from Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com 2012-05-18 03:40:21 EDT
---
Oh sorry, I thought that those packages are
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=818401
--- Comment #3 from Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com 2012-05-18 03:54:21 EDT
---
You stated:
License: GPLv2+
But LICENSE.txt
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=818401
--- Comment #4 from pcpa paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com 2012-05-18
09:45:47 EDT ---
Thanks. I will work on a new
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=818401
--- Comment #5 from pcpa paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com 2012-05-18
11:29:31 EDT ---
I did a minor conversion from the
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=818401
--- Comment #6 from pcpa paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com 2012-05-18
22:40:26 EDT ---
I just checked that rawhide ships
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=818401
pcpa paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
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=818401
--- Comment #7 from pcpa paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com 2012-05-19
00:56:54 EDT ---
New upstream alpha, and now there
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=818401
pcpa paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
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=818401
--- Comment #8 from pcpa paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com 2012-05-19
01:00:36 EDT ---
Forgot to specify, the two
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=818401
Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
72 matches
Mail list logo
