https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832698
Jason Tibbitts changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832698
Damian Wrobel changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dwro...@ertelnet.rybnik.pl
--- Comment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832698
Tom "spot" Callaway changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|182235 (FE-Legal) |
--- Comment #10 from Tom "spot"
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832698
--- Comment #9 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
koschei's scratch build of gdb-7.10.50.20151113-33.fc24.src.rpm for f24
completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12414110
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832698
Tom "spot" Callaway changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tcall...@redhat.com
Bl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832698
Christopher Meng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|182235 (FE-Legal) |
--- Comment #7 from Christopher Me
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832698
Mario Blättermann changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832698
Christopher Meng changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bress...@redhat.com
Flag
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832698
Christopher Meng changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cicku...@gmail.com
Blocks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832698
Josh Bressers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
--- Comment #5 from Josh Bressers -
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832698
--- Comment #4 from Josh Bressers ---
OK, so this isn't going to work on RHEL6 as is. I spoke with the RHEL6 gdb
maintainer. The ability to auto-load commands doesn't exist there. I'm going to
think about how to best address that. For now let's t
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832698
--- Comment #3 from Karel Klíč ---
I found a couple of minor issues. Fixing them would make the package better.
1. The spec file should not include the %clean section with "rm -rf
%{buildroot}".
2. There should be no "rm -rf %{buildroot}" at
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832698
--- Comment #2 from Josh Bressers ---
Richard Fontana looked at this, here is his response:
Based on the information provided about the technical context I do not believe
there is a licensing conflict, despite the fact that the CMU license is
GP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832698
--- Comment #1 from Karel Klíč ---
I feel the license might be an issue.
I interpret the license of this package (file LICENSE.txt) as "BSD with
advertising" because of the following section:
--
3. All advertising materials for third-party soft
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832698
Karel Klíč changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
15 matches
Mail list logo
