https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
Martin Frodl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On||1119255
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugz
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
Bug 905255 depends on bug 1119255, which changed state.
Bug 1119255 Summary: /lib64/libproc.so package both in procps and procps-devel,
unable to build packages depending on it
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119255
What
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
Bug 905255 depends on bug 950748, which changed state.
Bug 950748 Summary: /lib64/libproc.so package both in procps and procps-devel,
unable to build packages depending on it
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=950748
What
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
Mohamed El Morabity changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pikachu.2...@gmail.
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #2 from Mohamed El Morabity ---
> 3) I don't thing glib is really required by openvm-tools. I think you mean
> glib2 (according to configure.ac, only glib2 is needed). As a result,
> replace glib by glib2 in BuildRequi
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #3 from Sankar Tanguturi ---
Thanks for the review comments. I will address the review comments and update
the spec files.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
Mark Mikofski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bwanama...@yahoo.com
---
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #5 from Mark Mikofski ---
use:
sudo ./configure CFLAGS=-Wno-deprecated-declarations
to remove deprecation warnings treated as errors
isntalls fine as long as you also link to libprocps.so
Of course this is a sh
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #6 from Ravindra Kumar ---
I took up Sankar's original submission and made following changes:
- Modified SPEC to follow the conventions and guidelines
- Addressed review comments from Mohamed El Morabity
- Added sy
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #7 from Ravindra Kumar ---
My Fedora Account System Username: ravindrakumar
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
Ravindra Kumar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
Simone Caronni changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #10 from Ravindra Kumar ---
Thanks Simone. I hope you are ok with doing review under this bug. In case you
want me to file a new bug and mark this one as duplicate, let me know.
FYI, I would like to push this package
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #11 from Simone Caronni ---
Hello, no problem for the Fedora 19 deadlines, I think we can make it and we
can also add the package to Fedora 17/18 and EPEL 5/6. I think it would be very
beneficial for all the virtualisa
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #12 from Simone Caronni ---
1) Please use tabs or spaces consistently in the SPEC file; use tabs all over
or spaces.
For example, all the "Group" lines use spaces and not tabs like the rest of the
file.
2) Please red
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #13 from Simone Caronni ---
Created attachment 733289
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=733289&action=edit
Review fixes for the first part
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC l
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #14 from Simone Caronni ---
Please make sure to understand the patch contents and apply as is or integrate
with your amendments.
I also made a mistake in the patch, the changelog version should be 9.2 not
1.0.
Please
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #15 from Ravindra Kumar ---
Simone, thanks for the review and providing a fixes patch. I have incorporated
your patch as is and made a few corrections in the files section for base and
devel packages. Please find the u
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #16 from Simone Caronni ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> And, I can swear I did not mix tabs and spaces :-)
>
> I have defined tab space=8 in my vimrc and I think you would have defined it
> as 4, because your alignmen
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #17 from Simone Caronni ---
1) Service enablement
According to the Fedora policies no service should be started upon installation
for the exception of those listed in this page:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Startin
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #18 from Simone Caronni ---
Attached is a patch to your spec file with the changes for points 1-4.
As before, I have mixed tabs/spaces, so they do not match with yours, please
apply / update as you see fit.
--
You ar
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #19 from Simone Caronni ---
Created attachment 733357
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=733357&action=edit
Review fixes for the second part
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #20 from Simone Caronni ---
Sorry, I made a mistake (damn touchpad). Just to make it clearer:
(In reply to comment #17)
> rpmdev-newspec -m -r 4.5 -o 45.spec
> rpmdev-newspec -m -r 4.8 -o 48.spec
> rpmdev-newspec -m -
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #21 from Ravindra Kumar ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> I agree that the guestd daemon should be started upon installation as this
> is installed only in VMWare guests.
Yes.
> After the review I will file a ticket to
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #22 from Ravindra Kumar ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> I have downloaded the file again and it contains tabs again, maybe it's a
> Dropbox "feature"? :D
>
> I prefer spaces as well, and there's no general guidelines
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #23 from Mohamed El Morabity ---
Some comments:
- It looks like the help subpackage contains developement documentation. You'd
better drop it and include it in the devel subpackage.
- Static libraries are not recomma
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #24 from Simone Caronni ---
(In reply to comment #21)
> Sure. Could you please CC me on the ticket?
Sure.
> Thanks for making all the changes and providing the patch. Given all these
> complexities and testing effort
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #25 from Mohamed El Morabity ---
> > - Last but not least, open-vm-tools are not usable without specific kernel
> > modules, unless I'm wrong. Since Fedora doesn't allow inclusion of external
> > kernel modules, are th
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #26 from Simone Caronni ---
(In reply to comment #25)
> open-vm-tools provides also the following kernel modules:
> - vmblock
> - vmci
> - vmhgfs
> - vmsync
> - vmxnet
> - vsock
I confirm what Mohamed says, I have onl
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #27 from Simone Caronni ---
(In reply to comment #26)
> (In reply to comment #25)
> > open-vm-tools provides also the following kernel modules:
> > - vmblock
> > - vmci
> > - vmhgfs
> > - vmsync
> > - vmxnet
> > - vsoc
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #28 from Simone Caronni ---
I installed the tools in some Fedora 17 and 18 guests, I have IP information
reporting, Guest OS (it is named Fedora! Yay!) and I can power off / restart
the guest cleanly with the vCenter c
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #30 from Ravindra Kumar ---
Simone, I have two questions.
1. Why do we need systemd-sysv for these releases?
47 %if 0%{?fedora} >= 18 || 0%{?rhel} >= 7
48 Requires(post): systemd-sysv
2. I'm going to drop
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #29 from Ravindra Kumar ---
Thanks for the review Mohamed, and thanks Simone for testing things and
providing patch for Mohamed's comments.
> - Last but not least, open-vm-tools are not usable without specific kernel
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #31 from Ravindra Kumar ---
Created attachment 733937
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=733937&action=edit
Modified open-vm-tools.init
Patch to Simone's init script.
--
You are receiving this mail
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #32 from Ravindra Kumar ---
The patch I have provided for init script is for following reason.
I did not find the status check before starting the service, so I have also
modified the init script with status checks an
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #33 from Ravindra Kumar ---
> - Doc. files are usually installed in %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}. You can
> probably use the --docdir=%{_defaultdocdir}/%{name}-%{version}/ option in
> %configure, instead of installi
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #34 from Simone Caronni ---
(In reply to comment #29)
> > I can test and I'm offering myself as co-mantainer for the package, but I
> > would like to have epel 5 and 6 available. Is that ok for you?
>
> I will integr
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
Simone Caronni changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://fedorahosted.org
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #36 from Richard W.M. Jones ---
I have sponsored Ravindra Kumar into the packager group.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
Richard W.M. Jones changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |
--
You are receiv
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
Simone Caronni changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On||950748
--- Comment #37
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #38 from Ravindra Kumar ---
> I have sponsored Ravindra Kumar into the packager group.
Thanks Richard.
> Sorry, it was a leftover from another spec file from which I did copy the
> text.
> It will probably be needed
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #39 from Simone Caronni ---
(In reply to comment #38)
> How about fixing it in the README file from open-vm-tools source? That way it
> will stay more accurate.
Sure, no problem; as long as the information is availabl
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #40 from Ravindra Kumar ---
> Sure. I'm keeping most of your changes. I was not right --docdir is not
> causing double packaging of help, it seems to be something else. I'm
> still trying to figure it out.
In order to
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #41 from Richard W.M. Jones ---
I also looked over the spec file and it seems sane to me. There
are no obvious problems.
My personal preference would be to remove the conditions on
different versions of Fedora/RHEL a
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #42 from Simone Caronni ---
(In reply to comment #41)
> docdir handling seems a bit unothodox, but if it works then
> it's fine.
Me too, I don't really like it, and it doesn't work for the devel package, even
if you c
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #43 from Simone Caronni ---
Erhm, just discovered a font packaged with the docs:
/usr/share/doc/open-vm-tools-devel-9.2.2/html/FreeSans.ttf
This should be removed as well. Updated patch:
--- open-vm-tools.spec.old
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #44 from Richard W.M. Jones ---
(In reply to comment #42)
> Can I proceed with the formal review once Ravindra applies the
> aforementioned patch?
Please do.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #45 from Ravindra Kumar ---
> But since I will probably be the one mantaining the other branches (el5, el6,
> f17, f18) if it's ok for everybody we can review this and at the time of
> initial committing to the reposit
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #46 from Simone Caronni ---
For the font, you need also to delete it from the current release; when you'll
be updating the package upstream and thus generate a new package, you can
remove the line.
--- open-vm-tools.s
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #47 from Simone Caronni ---
(In reply to comment #45)
> I think we will have to remove this file from open-vm-tools source itself.
The main page of the project gives the idea that is totally abandoned, showing
release
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #48 from Richard W.M. Jones ---
FYI:
The ttf file is created by doxygen. It's not part of
open-vm-tools, but copied from /usr/share/fonts/gnu-free
from the existing system (package 'gnu-free-sans-fonts' on Fedora).
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #49 from Simone Caronni ---
Oops, you're right, the rm line should be in the %build or %install section.
--- open-vm-tools.spec.old2013-04-12 08:46:27.422858942 +0200
+++ open-vm-tools.spec2013-04-12 10:29:41.
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #50 from Richard W.M. Jones ---
If Koji doesn't give an error, then don't worry about it.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #51 from Simone Caronni ---
Off Topic: Ravindra, I don't have any problem on the systems I tested onto; and
the code seems in good shape, but is anybody taking seriously the sourceforge
pages and website?
There are 17
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #52 from Ravindra Kumar ---
I had noticed that web site has gone bit old, but the main reason for that is
there are not many new exciting things there to update. Once we package it
in Fedora and RHEL, we will have thin
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #53 from Richard W.M. Jones ---
The font file seems fine. I would not remove it.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/tok
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #54 from Simone Caronni ---
(In reply to comment #53)
> The font file seems fine. I would not remove it.
Really? Are you sure? I've never seen a package copying a file arbitrarily from
the system and including it. I
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #55 from Richard W.M. Jones ---
It's not clear to me. I asked on the packagers list:
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/2013-April/009046.html
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #56 from Nicolas Mailhot ---
(In reply to comment #54)
> (In reply to comment #53)
> > The font file seems fine. I would not remove it.
>
> Really? Are you sure? I've never seen a package copying a file arbitrarily
>
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #57 from Ravindra Kumar ---
Based on the discussion above, I have removed the font file from the packaging.
I could not remove it by inserting rm command in the %install and %build
sections.
I had to insert the rm comm
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #59 from Simone Caronni ---
Sorry, I'll be in a meeting all day, I'll start the official review later today
or tomorrow.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from th
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #58 from Richard W.M. Jones ---
You mustn't do this in the %check section.
The reason you couldn't remove it in %install is likely because
%doc is copied after %install. However you can still remove it
by doing (in %
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #60 from Ravindra Kumar ---
> However you can still remove it by doing (in %install):
> rm docs/api/build/FreeSans.ttf
Richard, I had this earlier from Simone's patch and it did not work because
'make
install' places
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #61 from Richard W.M. Jones ---
Your analysis must be wrong somewhere. %check runs after
the RPM has been built, so it shouldn't matter if %check runs
doxygen again.
It's quite possible that 'make install' runs doxyg
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #62 from Simone Caronni ---
You have replaced the spec file on dropbox and not in the src.rpm file, please
revert it as fedora-review parses this bug entry for downloading files.
This spec file does not even build a s
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #63 from Ravindra Kumar ---
> Your analysis must be wrong somewhere. %check runs after
> the RPM has been built, so it shouldn't matter if %check runs
> doxygen again.
I have verified this with 'rpmbuild --nocheck' a
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #64 from Simone Caronni ---
The %check section is a nice addition but is not mandatory, if this cause more
problems than anything we can just get rid of it.
Richard what you think?
--
You are receiving this mail bec
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #65 from Richard W.M. Jones ---
TBH I'm confused about which version I'm supposed to be looking
at. Also I don't think dropbox is a very good service -- the
MIME type it uses doesn't let me simply look at the file in
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #66 from Ravindra Kumar ---
Current version is 8. As I updated in my yesterday's update, these are the
URLs:
SPEC File URL: https://www.dropbox.com/s/158ss3zzpckaifp/open-vm-tools.spec
SRPM URL:
https://www.dropbox.co
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #67 from Ravindra Kumar ---
> I will see if I can fix it in dropbox.
I can't find a way to specify mime-type property for the file in dropbox :-(
Please let me know if having storage space on fedoraproject will help i
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #68 from Richard W.M. Jones ---
I built the latest spec file, first removing the 'rm' command
in the %check section, and there is no ttf file in the result.
So remove the rm in the %check section.
Apart from that, th
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #69 from Simone Caronni ---
Sa(In reply to comment #68)
> I built the latest spec file, first removing the 'rm' command
> in the %check section, and there is no ttf file in the result.
>
> So remove the rm in the %che
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #70 from Ravindra Kumar ---
Thanks Richard and Simone. I will do a totally fresh and new build and verify
this. Also, I will wait for your other review comments before I make this
change
in my SPEC file, so that I can
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #71 from Simone Caronni ---
I've put spec and src.rpm on fedorapeople.org, as dropbox does not work with
Fedora review as it opens the download form and it bombs out.
If you are sponsored I think you can have already
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #72 from Simone Caronni ---
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #73 from Simone Caronni ---
Not applicable issues:
==
Unversioned so-files
open-vm-tools: /usr/lib64/open-vm-tools/plugins/common/libhgfsServer.so
open-vm-tools: /usr/lib64/ope
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #74 from Simone Caronni ---
Issues:
===
- ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
Note: /sbin/ldconfig not called in open-vm-tools
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Shared_Libra
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #75 from Simone Caronni ---
License issues:
===
I think we need some review here...
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #76 from Ravindra Kumar ---
Thanks Simone for the detailed review. I'm working on these. I'm wondering if I
should remove old releases related bits from spec file before I submit it again
for next round of review? Or,
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #77 from Simone Caronni ---
Well, if it's going as in comment #42 that I will be the mantainer of the other
branches, feel free to remove all the tags, I will readd them later.
Btw, FESCo has approved the exception fo
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #78 from Ravindra Kumar ---
Simone, I have addressed all of your comments except license issue. Here are
the
updated files.
SPEC File URL: https://www.dropbox.com/s/9f689yzcrnqf1vx/open-vm-tools.spec
SRPM URL:
https:/
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #79 from Simone Caronni ---
(In reply to comment #78)
> Koji scratch build also has some issues with %fedora usage,
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Using_the_Koji_build_system#Scratch_Builds
> May be this is one more
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #80 from Dmitry Torokhov ---
(In reply to comment #79)
>
> We have only to solve the licensing issues. Have you had a change to read
> this?
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ
>
> It lists common cases
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #81 from Simone Caronni ---
The source code release contains all those licenses though. Ignoring the kernel
module files; this is the list of contained licenses:
> LGPL
> /var/lib/mock/fedora-18-x86_64/root/builddir/b
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #82 from Richard W.M. Jones ---
Note:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License:_field
that the License: field applies to the *binary*, not to the
source.
So
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
Simone Caronni changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comm
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #84 from Simone Caronni ---
I'll be off for the weekend and come back on monday (CET).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.co
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
Ravindra Kumar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #87 from Richard W.M. Jones ---
(In reply to comment #85)
> Richard, do you have anything for me to look at before I start the SCM
> process?
No.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for th
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
Jon Ciesla changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-cvs? |
Flags|
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #88 from Jon Ciesla ---
Git done (by process-git-requests).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=gkoq6cu5zJ&a=
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #89 from Ravindra Kumar ---
I have removed the steps related to old versions of Fedora and RHEL. Please
take a look at the final version of the SPEC file for Fedora 19 I would like
to checkin:
SPEC File URL: https://w
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
Ravindra Kumar changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|bwanama...@yahoo.com|
--- Comment #90 from R
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #91 from Ravindra Kumar ---
Checked in the package to rawhide and f19 branches.
Here are the links for fedpkg builds:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5294998 (rawhide)
http://koji.fedoraproject.org
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--
You
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #92 from Fedora Update System ---
open-vm-tools-9.2.2-11.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/open-vm-tools-9.2.2-11.fc19
--
You are receiving this mail because:
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
Simone Caronni changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-cvs+ |
Flags|
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #94 from Richard W.M. Jones ---
http://autoqa.fedoraproject.org/report/rm4b
AutoQA is complaining about a dependency on /usr/sbin/ldconfig,
which I don't understand. It looks like it's a false positive to me.
--
Yo
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255
--- Comment #95 from Simone Caronni ---
(In reply to comment #94)
> http://autoqa.fedoraproject.org/report/rm4b
>
> AutoQA is complaining about a dependency on /usr/sbin/ldconfig,
> which I don't understand. It looks like it's a
1 - 100 of 131 matches
Mail list logo
