https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820642
--- Comment #47 from Fedora Update System ---
figlet-2.2.5-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
pa
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820642
--- Comment #46 from Fedora Update System ---
figlet-2.2.5-1.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
pa
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820642
--- Comment #45 from Fedora Update System ---
figlet-2.2.5-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820642
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820642
--- Comment #43 from Fedora Update System ---
figlet-2.2.5-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/figlet-2.2.5-1.fc17
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820642
--- Comment #42 from Fedora Update System ---
figlet-2.2.5-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/figlet-2.2.5-1.fc16
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820642
--- Comment #41 from Fedora Update System ---
figlet-2.2.5-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/figlet-2.2.5-1.el6
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for th
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820642
--- Comment #40 from Fedora Update System ---
figlet-2.2.5-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/figlet-2.2.5-1.el5
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for th
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820642
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |MODIFIED
--
You are receiving th
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820642
--- Comment #39 from Jon Ciesla ---
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
package-review@lists
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820642
Simone Caronni changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #38 from Simone
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820642
--- Comment #37 from Simone Caronni ---
Yeah, it's a shame for the font, but anyway is
_ _ _ _
_ __ _ __ ___| |_| |_ _ ____ ___ ___ | | |
| '_ \| '__/ _ \ __| __| | | | / _
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820642
pcpa changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #36 from pcpa ---
Pac
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820642
--- Comment #35 from Matthias Runge ---
It looks like legal problems were cleared.
(In reply to comment #33)
> Lifting FE-Legal.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820642
--- Comment #34 from Simone Caronni ---
Hello,
any news from Legal? Is there a way I can check the progress on this or as part
of the Legal scrutiny updates will be posted here in the bug?
Thanks & regards,
--Simone
--
You are receiving this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820642
Tom "spot" Callaway changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|182235 (FE-Legal) |
--- Comment #33 from Tom "spot" C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820642
--- Comment #32 from Simone Caronni ---
Hello,
I noticed 2.2.5 has come out with the aforementioned changes to licensing.
Spec URL: http://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/figlet.spec
SRPM URL: http://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/figlet-2.2.5-1.fc17.src.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820642
--- Comment #31 from Simone Caronni ---
Thanks for pushing this. I will wait on 2.2.5 to provide an updated package.
Regards,
--Simone
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820642
--- Comment #30 from Claudio Matsuoka ---
Regarding comment #29, John Cowan informs that:
"Those should simply be replaced by the verbatim contents of the
corresponding files at http://www.unicode.org/Public/MAPPINGS/ISO8859 .
In addition, the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820642
--- Comment #29 from Claudio Matsuoka ---
We've just been informed by Jonathan McCrohan of Debian that:
"During a review of my updated figlet 2.2.4-1 package[1], it was
discovered that the fonts directory still contains non-distributable
files.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820642
--- Comment #28 from Claudio Matsuoka ---
(In reply to comment #23)
> A comment, which describes which file has which license is still missing:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/
> LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios
>
> (
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820642
--- Comment #27 from Simone Caronni ---
All of the fonts are not scalable, they're made of ordinary ascii as far as I
know.
Any news from Claudio Matsuoka regarding the license calrifications?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820642
Tom "spot" Callaway changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tcall...@redhat.com
--- Comment #2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820642
Matthias Runge changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mru...@matthias-runge.de
--- Comment #2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820642
--- Comment #24 from Simone Caronni ---
Thanks,
still waiting for the reply at comment #9 to see which files have which
license.
I will add the appropriate license files and comments to the spec/srpm file
when a response is available.
--
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820642
Thomas Spura changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||182235
--- Comment #23 from Thomas Spura
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820642
--- Comment #22 from Simone Caronni ---
I forgot to say that I left buildroot etc. intentionally as I plan to build it
also for EPEL 5.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820642
--- Comment #21 from Simone Caronni ---
Hello,
come back from holiday right now, thanks for all the input. Here is the updated
package and spec file:
Spec URL: http://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/figlet.spec
SRPM URL: http://slaanesh.fedorapeople.
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=820642
--- Comment #20 from Claudio Matsuoka 2012-05-17 09:07:44
EDT ---
> Who "considers [them] insufficently creative to copyright"
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=820642
Thomas Spura 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=820642
Thomas Spura 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=820642
--- Comment #17 from pcpa 2012-05-16
23:40:35 EDT ---
It is optional to address the usage and rm -fr of Buildroot, and
usage of
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=820642
--- Comment #15 from pcpa 2012-05-16
23:30:46 EDT ---
Not explicitly stated in the review procedures, but there is a make check
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=820642
--- Comment #16 from pcpa 2012-05-16
23:31:17 EDT ---
ok MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the b
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=820642
pcpa 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=820642
--- Comment #13 from Claudio Matsuoka 2012-05-14 06:56:13
EDT ---
Hi,
John Cowan from the FIGlet development team informed us
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=820642
--- Comment #11 from Simone Caronni 2012-05-14 04:04:28
EDT ---
Hello,
thanks for all the input. I've made all the modificatio
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=820642
--- Comment #12 from Simone Caronni 2012-05-14 04:05:12
EDT ---
I also added a small comment at the top of the spec file with t
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=820642
Claudio Matsuoka 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=820642
pcpa 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=820642
--- Comment #8 from Simone Caronni 2012-05-11 07:35:28
EDT ---
Thanks, applied the changes; spec file is at the same place.
An
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=820642
--- Comment #7 from Terje Røsten 2012-05-11 07:21:28
EDT ---
All man pages is marked as %doc by rpmbuild, you can drop the %d
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=820642
--- Comment #6 from Simone Caronni 2012-05-11 03:29:22
EDT ---
Sorry for double posting, browser error. Second comment is ok.
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=820642
--- Comment #4 from Simone Caronni 2012-05-11 03:28:36
EDT ---
Hello,
here are the changes:
1- Removal gzip of man pages
2- R
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=820642
--- Comment #5 from Simone Caronni 2012-05-11 03:28:55
EDT ---
Hello,
here are the changes:
1- Removal gzip of man pages
2- R
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=820642
Terje Røsten 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=820642
--- Comment #2 from Jason Tibbitts 2012-05-10 14:39:43 EDT
---
I guess the licensing issue which caused so much problems has be
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=820642
Simone Caronni changed:
What|Removed |Added
48 matches
Mail list logo
