Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843997
--- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System ---
mlpack-1.0.3-4.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.
Unsubscribe from this bug
http
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843997
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Re
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843997
--- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System ---
mlpack-1.0.3-4.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
htt
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843997
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--
You are
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843997
--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System ---
mlpack-1.0.3-4.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mlpack-1.0.3-4.el6
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on th
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843997
--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System ---
mlpack-1.0.1-5.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.
__
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843997
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System ---
mlpack-1.0.1-5.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
__
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843997
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System ---
mlpack-1.0.1-5.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mlpack-1.0.1-5.fc17
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843997
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System ---
mlpack-1.0.1-5.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mlpack-1.0.1-5.fc18
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843997
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--
You
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843997
José Matos changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jama...@fc.up.pt
--
You ar
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843997
--- Comment #18 from José Matos ---
Oops, I thought I already had.
Done now.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing lis
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843997
--- Comment #17 from Jon Ciesla ---
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Jose, please take ownership of revire BZs, thanks!
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843997
Ryan Curtin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #1
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843997
José Matos changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843997
--- Comment #14 from Ryan Curtin ---
Ah, I removed the leftover license installation and the updated spec is at the
usual place:
http://www.mlpack.org/files/mlpack.spec
I did not bump the version since this was such a trivial change and it has
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843997
--- Comment #13 from José Matos ---
I am running out of excuses to approve this package. ;-)
One small issue, no need to generate a new srpm for this. There still a
leftover from the previous license installation:
# Put the license file in plac
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843997
--- Comment #12 from Ryan Curtin ---
I didn't know about the '%doc LICENSE.txt' trick; I have updated that.
> I have a different opinion regarding this. If the documentation is provided
> by upstream it is my opinion that we should provide it,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843997
--- Comment #11 from José Matos ---
There is no need to add the files as attachments. :-)
Some more low hanging fruit.
1) There is no need to put the license file in place in the %install section.
It is enough to do this in the %files section:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843997
--- Comment #10 from Ryan Curtin ---
I have verified the URLs (turns out the SRPM was missing) but also added the
files as attachments in case.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843997
--- Comment #9 from Ryan Curtin ---
Created attachment 617275
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=617275&action=edit
mlpack 1.0.1-4 srpm
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843997
--- Comment #8 from Ryan Curtin ---
Created attachment 617274
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=617274&action=edit
mlpack 1.0.1-4 spec file
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
__
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843997
--- Comment #7 from José Matos ---
I am sorry Ryan for taking so long.
I took a long time to understand what was going on until I found out the
problem, (shortening a long story) the problem is that the url's above for spec
and srpm do not work (
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843997
--- Comment #6 from Ryan Curtin ---
> 1) Why is not the LICENSE.txt in the main package?
Oops, I did not realize I should be distributing that. I modified the spec to
install LICENSE.txt.
> 2) Another issue that is not an error but I am curiou
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843997
José Matos changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|rawhide |18
Assignee|jama...@fc.up.pt
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843997
--- Comment #4 from Ryan Curtin ---
Hello there,
Thank you for the numerous comments. It appears I have many things to learn
before becoming a sponsored packager!
I have unofficially reviewed two packages and in doing so have learned much
abou
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843997
Jussi Lehtola changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jussi.leht...@iki.fi
--- Comment #3 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843997
--- Comment #2 from Michael Schwendt ---
An honest attempt at trying to review your own package could be enlightening:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines
If you're unsure about the possibly overwhelming list of MUST/SHO
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843997
José Matos changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review?
--
You are receiving this m
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843997
José Matos changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
30 matches
Mail list logo
