Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=875150
--- Comment #25 from Jon Ciesla ---
Summary and request name mismatch, please correct. Also, no need to request
f19, devel branch is automatic.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubsc
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=875150
Honza Horak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #2
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=875150
Jiri Popelka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags|
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=875150
--- Comment #22 from Jiri Popelka ---
(In reply to comment #21)
> ... but I'm not sure what to do with
> two identical license files (COPYING.Percona and COPYING.Google) -- both BSD
> license, but with different copyright authorit
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=875150
--- Comment #21 from Honza Horak ---
Created attachment 676314
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=676314&action=edit
Changes made in spec file
(In reply to comment #13)
> [!]: License field in the package spec fi
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=875150
--- Comment #20 from Honza Horak ---
(In reply to comment #19)
> [ checks an F18 machine... ] Huh, they finally got around to adding that.
> Okay, given that I'm fine with using %check instead of a hand-rolled define.
> The only
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=875150
--- Comment #19 from Tom Lane ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> (In reply to comment #17)
> > I might be willing to tolerate that and use %check if it actually did
> > anything useful, like say if rpmbuild had an option to control w
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=875150
--- Comment #18 from Honza Horak ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> (In reply to comment #16)
> > Tom, do you remember if there is a reason to run the tests in %build
> > section?
>
> The reason I've historically run mysql's regres
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=875150
Tom Lane changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(t...@redhat.com) |
--- Comment #17 from Tom La
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=875150
Honza Horak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||t...@redhat.com
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=875150
--- Comment #15 from Jiri Popelka ---
Some suggestions for spec file clean-up:
1)
- %post libs
- /sbin/ldconfig
+ %post libs -p /sbin/ldconfig
- %postun libs
- if [ $1 = 0 ] ; then
- /sbin/ldconfig
- fi
+ %postun libs -p /s
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=875150
--- Comment #14 from Jiri Popelka ---
Created attachment 674968
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=674968&action=edit
fedora-review's licensecheck output
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=875150
Jiri Popelka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jpope...@redhat.com
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=875150
--- Comment #12 from Renich Bon Ciric ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> Sorry for quite long delay, but I've finally found time to get back to this.
> However, after consulting with another packagers it seems much better to not
> us
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=875150
--- Comment #11 from Honza Horak ---
Sorry for quite long delay, but I've finally found time to get back to this.
However, after consulting with another packagers it seems much better to not
use completely new SPEC file and packag
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=875150
--- Comment #10 from Renich Bon Ciric ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> I think we can still keep going to work on this review to have it prepared
> for the future.
I apologize for my English; it seems I keep saying things the wrong way.
I will,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=875150
--- Comment #9 from Honza Horak ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> > If we'll ever replace mysql by maria, I'd suggest to do it together with new
> > major/minor version rebase (probably to 5.6). Then soname versions would
> > bump and all clients wo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=875150
--- Comment #8 from Renich Bon Ciric ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> As I understand the "replacement" statement, we can safely use maria instead
> of mysql from the view of application. But I wouldn't rely on any promise to
> use exactly the same
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=875150
--- Comment #7 from Honza Horak ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Done. What should be the correct location of the post and postun in the
> kickstart? After %install?
You mean in a spec file? I believe it doesn't matter, but they are usually
locate
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=875150
--- Comment #5 from Renich Bon Ciric ---
errr.. it seems I am having some problems when separating *.so in /var/lib64
from everything... It appears that MariaDB needs those libs there...
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=875150
--- Comment #6 from Renich Bon Ciric ---
SRPM: http://renich.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/mariadb-5.5.28-2.fc17.src.rpm
SPEC: http://renich.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/mariadb.spec
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=875150
--- Comment #4 from Renich Bon Ciric ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Another set of issues:
>
> We usually don't want any *.a files in rpms, so the following should be
> removed:
> /usr/lib64/libmysqlclient.a
> /usr/lib64/libmysqlclient_r.a
> /us
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=875150
--- Comment #3 from Renich Bon Ciric ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Besides other things you probably meant plugins libraries still packaged
> into -libs, while -plugins sub-package is empty. I guess these libraries
> were meant to be there.
Ok,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=875150
--- Comment #2 from Honza Horak ---
Another set of issues:
We usually don't want any *.a files in rpms, so the following should be
removed:
/usr/lib64/libmysqlclient.a
/usr/lib64/libmysqlclient_r.a
/usr/lib64/libmysqlservices.a
All config files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=875150
--- Comment #1 from Honza Horak ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> Ok, the package builds. It's somewhat separated (not finished yet separating
> it correctly). I'd like to ask for some co-packager's help here.
Besides other things you probably mean
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=875150
Honza Horak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hho...@redhat.com
Assignee|nob..
26 matches
Mail list logo
