https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=890772
--- Comment #48 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-ae16de6e91 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable
repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=890772
--- Comment #47 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-71bf8af3bf has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable
repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=890772
--- Comment #46 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2023-77064a9bee has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=890772
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=890772
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #44 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=890772
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |MODIFIED
--- Comment #43 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=890772
--- Comment #42 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2023-7ef844ecf4 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=890772
--- Comment #41 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-71bf8af3bf has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing
repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=890772
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #40 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=890772
--- Comment #39 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-71bf8af3bf has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-71bf8af3bf
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=890772
--- Comment #38 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2023-77064a9bee has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-77064a9bee
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=890772
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--- Comment #37 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=890772
--- Comment #36 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions
---
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/tvlsim
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=890772
Felix Kaechele changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #35 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=890772
--- Comment #34 from Fedora Review Service
---
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6608096
(succeeded)
Review template:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=890772
--- Comment #33 from Fedora Review Service
---
Created attachment 1997657
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1997657=edit
The .spec file difference from Copr build 6558466 to 6608096
--
You are receiving this mail because:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=890772
--- Comment #32 from Denis Arnaud ---
Thanks for the review!
The files (the RPM specification, as well as the source RPM) have been updated,
fixing the documentation directory ownership and build-requirement for ZeroMQ:
* Spec URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=890772
--- Comment #31 from Felix Kaechele ---
Looking good except for one minor thing (the directory ownership of
/usr/share/doc/tvlsim).
When that's fixed I'm good to approve.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] =
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=890772
--- Comment #30 from Denis Arnaud ---
Everything seems clean (and working) by now. No significant error reported by
the automated review.
When you have time, Felix, you can proceed with the review then.
Thanks!
--
You are receiving this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=890772
--- Comment #29 from Fedora Review Service
---
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6558466
(succeeded)
Review template:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=890772
--- Comment #28 from Fedora Review Service
---
Created attachment 1995208
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1995208=edit
The .spec file difference from Copr build 6558134 to 6558466
--
You are receiving this mail because:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=890772
--- Comment #27 from Denis Arnaud ---
* Spec URL:
https://denisarnaud.fedorapeople.org/sim/tvlsim/tvlsim-1.01.6-1.spec
* SRPM URL:
https://denisarnaud.fedorapeople.org/sim/tvlsim/tvlsim-1.01.6-1.fc40.src.rpm
* Successful Koji build:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=890772
Fedora Review Service changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://github.com/airsim/%
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=890772
--- Comment #25 from Denis Arnaud ---
* Spec URL:
https://denisarnaud.fedorapeople.org/sim/tvlsim/tvlsim-1.01.6-1.spec
* SRPM URL:
https://denisarnaud.fedorapeople.org/sim/tvlsim/tvlsim-1.01.6-1.fc40.src.rpm
* Succesful build:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=890772
--- Comment #24 from Fedora Review Service
---
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6557868
(failed)
Build log:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=890772
--- Comment #23 from Denis Arnaud ---
Succesful build with ctest:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=107948232
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=890772
--- Comment #22 from Denis Arnaud ---
* Spec URL:
https://denisarnaud.fedorapeople.org/sim/tvlsim/tvlsim-1.01.6-1.spec
* SRPM URL:
https://denisarnaud.fedorapeople.org/sim/tvlsim/tvlsim-1.01.6-1.fc40.src.rpm
* Succesful build:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=890772
--- Comment #20 from Felix Kaechele ---
A few notes before we can continue.
The package as linked here previously currently does not build. It looks like
the cmake macros need updating (e.g. %cmake instead of %cmake .; %cmake_build
and
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=890772
Felix Kaechele changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(fe...@kaechele.ca |
|)
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
Felix Kaechele has canceled Package Review
's request for Felix Kaechele
's needinfo:
Bug 890772: Review Request: tvlsim - Travel Market Simulator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=890772
--- Comment #18 from Felix
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=890772
Hison changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ericc6...@gmail.com
--- Comment #15 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=890772
--- Comment #16 from Hison ---
Now it's important to think about exactly where you're going, so that everyone
was comfortable. For example, you can look here and read in detail
https://tripbirdie.com/guam-all-inclusive-resorts/ , I, for
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
Denis Arnaud has canceled Package Review
's request for Felix Kaechele
's needinfo:
Bug 890772: Review Request: tvlsim - Travel Market Simulator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=890772
--- Comment #14 from Denis Arnaud
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=890772
Denis Arnaud changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(fe...@kaechele.ca |
|)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=890772
--- Comment #12 from Denis Arnaud ---
Yes, I'm still very much interested in that review to be completed (normally,
it should now have become a no-brainer, as the latest iteration cleared the
concerns; see #10).
--
You are receiving this
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
Denis Arnaud has canceled Package Review
's request for Felix Kaechele
's needinfo:
Bug 890772: Review Request: tvlsim - Travel Market Simulator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=890772
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=890772
Denis Arnaud changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(fe...@kaechele.ca |
|)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=890772
--- Comment #10 from Denis Arnaud ---
--
Spec URL: http://denisarnaud.fedorapeople.org/sim/tvlsim/tvlsim.spec
SRPM URL:
http://denisarnaud.fedorapeople.org/sim/tvlsim/tvlsim-1.01.1-1.fc30.src.rpm
--
Successful build on Rawhide (F30):
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=890772
--- Comment #9 from Denis Arnaud denis.arnaud_fed...@m4x.org ---
Spec URL: http://denisarnaud.fedorapeople.org/sim/tvlsim/tvlsim.spec
SRPM URL:
http://denisarnaud.fedorapeople.org/sim/tvlsim/tvlsim-1.00.0-4.fc20.src.rpm
-
Thanks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=890772
Denis Arnaud denis.arnaud_fed...@m4x.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On||760594,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=890772
--- Comment #8 from Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me ---
(In reply to Felix Kaechele from comment #5)
I was thinking about the rpmlint warning regarding unused direct library
dependencies.
Those can be fixed by passing -Wl,--as-needed to the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=890772
--- Comment #7 from Denis Arnaud denis.arnaud_fed...@m4x.org ---
Yes, for sure, I am still very much interested in having that package finding
its way to Fedora/CentOS/RedHat, as it is the main entry point for the whole
Travel Market Simulator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=890772
--- Comment #6 from Felix Kaechele fe...@fetzig.org ---
Still interested?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=890772
Felix Kaechele fe...@fetzig.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|package-review@lists.fedora |
44 matches
Mail list logo