Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845107
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|ERRATA
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845107
--- Comment #31 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
rubygem-openshift-origin-msg-broker-mcollective-1.1.6-2.fc17 has been pushed to
the Fedora 17 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845107
--- Comment #30 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
rubygem-openshift-origin-msg-broker-mcollective-1.1.6-2.fc17 has been submitted
as an update for Fedora 17.
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845107
--- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
rubygem-openshift-origin-msg-broker-mcollective-1.0.1-1.fc17 has been submitted
as an update for Fedora 17.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845107
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845107
David Nalley da...@gnsa.us changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845107
Adam Miller admil...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review+ |
Flags|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845107
Adam Miller maxamill...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845107
--- Comment #23 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=845107
Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||limburg...@gmail.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845107
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845107
--- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
rubygem-openshift-origin-msg-broker-mcollective-0.1.1-9.fc17 has been submitted
as an update for Fedora 17.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845107
--- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
rubygem-openshift-origin-msg-broker-mcollective-0.1.1-9.fc18 has been submitted
as an update for Fedora 18.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845107
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845107
--- Comment #20 from Adam Miller admil...@redhat.com ---
SPEC URL:
http://maxamillion.fedorapeople.org/rubygem-openshift-origin-msg-broker-mcollective.spec
SRPM URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845107
--- Comment #18 from Troy Dawson tdaw...@redhat.com ---
SPEC URL:
http://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/openshift-origin/rubygem-openshift-origin-msg-broker-mcollective.spec
SRPM URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845107
--- Comment #19 from Troy Dawson tdaw...@redhat.com ---
SPEC URL:
http://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/openshift-origin/rubygem-openshift-origin-msg-broker-mcollective.spec
SRPM URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845107
--- Comment #17 from Troy Dawson tdaw...@redhat.com ---
SPEC URL:
http://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/openshift-origin/rubygem-openshift-origin-msg-broker-mcollective.spec
SRPM URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845107
--- Comment #14 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com ---
What is the reason to not use the gem as a Source0 for the package? Why are you
using the tarball?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845107
--- Comment #15 from Adam Miller admil...@redhat.com ---
I've always had the impression of Must Build From Source when it comes to
Fedora packages and have generally defaulted to the tarballs from upstream
projects, I'm still rather new to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845107
--- Comment #16 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com ---
If the gem is platform independent, it always contains the source code. In Ruby
world, there is typically no tarball available, so your package would be an
exception. And as a last point,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845107
--- Comment #11 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com ---
(In reply to comment #9)
Vit - I've updated with your feedback.
Thank you.
* ruby_sitelib is not needed.
* You should not own %{gem_dir}
- The idea is to own %{gem_instdir}, i.e. %dir
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845107
Troy Dawson tdaw...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tdaw...@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845107
--- Comment #13 from Adam Miller admil...@redhat.com ---
SPEC URL:
http://maxamillion.fedorapeople.org/rubygem-openshift-origin-msg-broker-mcollective.spec
SRPM URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845107
Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vondr...@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845107
--- Comment #8 from Adam Miller admil...@redhat.com ---
David, I don't entirely follow ... I install %{SOURCE1} on line 78 of the spec
file and the %ghost file was specified by the upstream author of the plugin. I
will ask for clarification.
No
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845107
--- Comment #9 from Adam Miller admil...@redhat.com ---
SPEC URL:
http://maxamillion.fedorapeople.org/rubygem-openshift-origin-msg-broker-mcollective.spec
SRPM URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845107
--- Comment #10 from Adam Miller admil...@redhat.com ---
David,
I got clarification on the %ghost file entry. That file originates from,
and it provided by, the mcollective package but is required by this package.
The configuration file can
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845107
--- Comment #6 from David Nalley da...@gnsa.us ---
I am more confused.
You moved from heredoc to source1 - but you don't do anything with it. (e.g.
there is no 'copy'.
Then you use %ghost in files to tell RPM 'I am not installing this but you
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845107
--- Comment #5 from Adam Miller admil...@redhat.com ---
Fixed the heredoc (no idea .. don't ask, that was a multi-person oversight) and
also fixed the chown/chmod garble in %post.
I have no idea where these are coming from or if they are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845107
David Nalley da...@gnsa.us changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845107
--- Comment #3 from David Nalley da...@gnsa.us ---
[ ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the
build produces. The output should be posted in the review.(refer to
[ke4qqq@mba SPECS]$ rpmlint
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845107
David Nalley da...@gnsa.us changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review?
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845107
--- Comment #4 from Adam Miller admil...@redhat.com ---
Thanks for picking this up! I've spoken with the upstream author on this and I
swear we discussed the reasons for both the heredoc file creation and the
chmod/chown in %post but now neither
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845107
Adam Miller admil...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
35 matches
Mail list logo
