https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822896
--- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
pari-galdata-20080411-3.el5.1, pari-elldata-20120415-5.el5.1 has been pushed to
the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822896
--- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
pari-galdata-20080411-3.el6, pari-elldata-20120415-5.el6 has been pushed to the
Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822896
Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED
Fixed In
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822896
--- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
pari-galdata-20080411-3.fc16, pari-elldata-20120415-5.fc16 has been pushed to
the Fedora 16 stable repository.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822896
--- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
pari-galdata-20080411-3.fc17, pari-elldata-20120415-5.fc17 has been pushed to
the Fedora 17 stable repository.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822896
Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822896
--- Comment #20 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=822896
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822896
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
pari-galdata-20080411-3.el6,pari-elldata-20120415-5.el6 has been submitted as
an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822896
--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
pari-galdata-20080411-3.fc16,pari-elldata-20120415-5.fc16 has been submitted as
an update for Fedora 16.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822896
--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
pari-galdata-20080411-3.el5.1,pari-elldata-20120415-5.el5.1 has been submitted
as an update for Fedora EPEL 5.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822896
--- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
pari-galdata-20080411-3.fc17,pari-elldata-20120415-5.fc17 has been submitted as
an update for Fedora 17.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822896
--- Comment #17 from Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org ---
(In reply to comment #15)
(In reply to comment #14)
I've looked through the changelog for pari and it looks like old versions of
pari can't use elldata but wouldn't be broken by it
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822896
pcpa paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822896
pcpa paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822896
--- Comment #16 from pcpa paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com ---
-%- fedora-review -v -b 822896 -n pari-elldata -%-
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: MUST Package is
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822896
--- Comment #14 from Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org ---
I've looked through the changelog for pari and it looks like old versions of
pari can't use elldata but wouldn't be broken by it (i.e. in this case there
wasn't a data format change, whcih
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822896
--- Comment #13 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de ---
(In reply to comment #12)
(In reply to comment #11)
Paul, I have been repeatedly reading over the rationale for this
Conflicts:, but still fail to understand it.
Could you try
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822896
--- Comment #12 from Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org ---
(In reply to comment #11)
Paul, I have been repeatedly reading over the rationale for this
Conflicts:, but still fail to understand it.
Could you try to elaborate/summarize it? Which
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822896
--- Comment #11 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de ---
Paul, I have been repeatedly reading over the rationale for this Conflicts:,
but still fail to understand it.
Could you try to elaborate/summarize it? Which problem is this trying to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822896
--- Comment #10 from Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org ---
(In reply to comment #9)
(In reply to comment #8)
I think the conflict does not matter much, as pari-gp is a pari
subpackage.
Don't know what you mean by that. I was wondering
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822896
--- Comment #5 from Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org ---
(In reply to comment #3)
For elldata it should be clear the source is GPL and the author
is very active in sagemath development at least, but the other
pari- packages may need further
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822896
--- Comment #6 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de ---
(In reply to comment #5)
(In reply to comment #4)
- Shipping the *.asc sig seems pretty meaningless to me.
I just see it being used as an extra check that the tarball hasn't
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822896
--- Comment #7 from pcpa paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Only issue I see now is that it should have a Requires: pari-gp
for proper resolution of dependencies.
Can't do that as it would lead to a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822896
--- Comment #8 from Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org ---
(In reply to comment #6)
(In reply to comment #5)
(In reply to comment #4)
- Shipping the *.asc sig seems pretty meaningless to me.
I just see it being used as an extra check that
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822896
--- Comment #9 from pcpa paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to comment #8)
Do you mean these packages will be build requires of pari now? I
see they could be useful in a very complete %check.
Yes, that's the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822896
--- Comment #2 from Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org ---
(In reply to comment #1)
I would like to review this package.
The first issues I noticed:
data/elldata/README is not %doc tagged.
Fixed in -2:
Spec URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822896
--- Comment #3 from pcpa paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to comment #2)
(In reply to comment #1)
I would like to review this package.
The first issues I noticed:
data/elldata/README is not %doc tagged.
Fixed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822896
Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rc040...@freenet.de
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822896
pcpa paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
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=822896
Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
31 matches
Mail list logo
