subject:"\[Bug 879749\] Review Request\: xs\-activation \- OLPC XS Activation Server"

[Bug 879749] Review Request: xs-activation - OLPC XS Activation Server

2012-12-04 Thread bugzilla

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879749 Alex changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(m...@zarb.org) -- You

[Bug 879749] Review Request: xs-activation - OLPC XS Activation Server

2012-12-01 Thread bugzilla

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879749 --- Comment #10 from Alex --- Spec URL: http://matrix.senecac.on.ca/~aadavis1/packaging/xs-activation.spec SRPM URL: http://matrix.senecac.on.ca/~aadavis1/packaging/xs-activation-0.3.14.gd2a3727-2.fc17.src.rpm Description: Hi, I h

[Bug 879749] Review Request: xs-activation - OLPC XS Activation Server

2012-11-26 Thread bugzilla

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879749 --- Comment #9 from Alex --- hey I think uploading this in the fedora review will mark it as a duplicate so I post the links above. it the same source but file is uploaded. just waiting for a sponsor -- You are receiving this m

[Bug 879749] Review Request: xs-activation - OLPC XS Activation Server

2012-11-26 Thread bugzilla

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879749 --- Comment #8 from Alex --- hey I think uploading this in the fedora review will mark it as a duplicate so I post the links above. it the same source but file is uploaded. just waiting for a sponsor -- You are receiving this m

[Bug 879749] Review Request: xs-activation - OLPC XS Activation Server

2012-11-25 Thread bugzilla

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879749 --- Comment #7 from Alex --- Spec URL: http://matrix.senecac.on.ca/~aadavis1/packaging/xs-activation.spec SRPM URL: http://matrix.senecac.on.ca/~aadavis1/packaging/xs-activation-0.3.14.gd2a3727-2.fc17.src.rpm Description: Hi! I ju

[Bug 879749] Review Request: xs-activation - OLPC XS Activation Server

2012-11-25 Thread bugzilla

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879749 --- Comment #6 from Michael Scherer --- For package, if you want to do x86_64, you build on x86_64 host, and the same for i386. Once you have made correction, just give the url to the new version of the spec file and srpm. -- Y

[Bug 879749] Review Request: xs-activation - OLPC XS Activation Server

2012-11-25 Thread bugzilla

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879749 --- Comment #5 from Alex --- (In reply to comment #4) > A few notes as part of the review : > > 1) Packager tag should not be used > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags > > > 2) I do not think %post should

[Bug 879749] Review Request: xs-activation - OLPC XS Activation Server

2012-11-24 Thread bugzilla

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879749 Michael Scherer changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||879752 --- Comment #4

[Bug 879749] Review Request: xs-activation - OLPC XS Activation Server

2012-11-24 Thread bugzilla

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879749 --- Comment #3 from Michael Scherer --- So, I assume you do not have yet a sponsor, I can review and help you, but you will need to find one ( following https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process ) to sponsor if your t