https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908088
--- Comment #11 from Rex Dieter ---
My apologies for failing to notice your updating this... I'll try to finish
this up by tomorrow.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about cha
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908088
--- Comment #12 from Rex Dieter ---
License: OK
Item 3 above not completely fixed, there's still one reference to
%{python_sitearch}
8. -libs subpkg MUST include ldconfig scriptlets (and now main pkg no longer
needs them)
9. nothing depen
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908088
Rex Dieter changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(rdie...@math.unl. |
|edu)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908088
--- Comment #13 from Antonio Trande ---
(In reply to Rex Dieter from comment #12)
> License: OK
>
> Item 3 above not completely fixed, there's still one reference to
> %{python_sitearch}
Done.
>
> 8. -libs subpkg MUST include ldconfig scri
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908088
--- Comment #14 from Rex Dieter ---
item 8 was fixed incorrectly. -libs scriptlet should be ldconfig *only* the
rest of the stuff left in the main pkg scriptlet. Do this:
%post libs -p /sbin/ldconfig
%postun -libs -p /sbin/ldconfig
%post
up
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908088
--- Comment #15 from Rex Dieter ---
just noticed a typo in my comment about item 8, theres an extra - in there.
use:
%post libs -p /sbin/ldconfig
%postun libs -p /sbin/ldconfig
...
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC l
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908088
--- Comment #16 from Antonio Trande ---
(In reply to Rex Dieter from comment #14)
> item 8 was fixed incorrectly. -libs scriptlet should be ldconfig *only* the
> rest of the stuff left in the main pkg scriptlet. Do this:
>
> %post libs -p /s
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908088
--- Comment #17 from Rex Dieter ---
-data still has:
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
should be:
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
-devel has:
Requires: %{name}-libs = %{version}-%{release}
should be:
Requires: %{name}
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908088
--- Comment #18 from Antonio Trande ---
(In reply to Rex Dieter from comment #17)
> -data still has:
> Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
> should be:
> Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
>
> -devel has:
> Requires: %{nam
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908088
--- Comment #19 from Antonio Trande ---
Briefly:
main rpm
Requires: %{name}-libs = %{version}-%{release}
Requires: %{name}-data = %{version}-%{release}
-libs rpm
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
-devel rpm
Requires: %{na
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908088
--- Comment #20 from Rex Dieter ---
No. in short, you want all references to the main pkg to *not* use %{_isa} and
any reference to -libs or -data to use %{_isa}
These 2 need to be:
main rpm
Requires: %{name}-libs%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{rel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908088
--- Comment #21 from Antonio Trande ---
(In reply to Rex Dieter from comment #20)
> No. in short, you want all references to the main pkg to *not* use %{_isa}
> and any reference to -libs or -data to use %{_isa}
>
>
> -libs rpm
> Requires:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908088
--- Comment #22 from Rex Dieter ---
Correct, dependencies should not consider architecture (ie, and use %{_isa})
for packages that are not (or that you don't want to be ) multilib'd. In this
case, we do not want the main package to be multilib
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908088
--- Comment #23 from Antonio Trande ---
Sorry for the confusion.
Spec URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/ascend/ascend.spec
SRPM URL:
http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/ascend/ascend-0.9.8-5.20140211svn4638.fc20.src.rpm
--
You are receiving
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908088
Rex Dieter changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #24 from Rex D
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908088
Antonio Trande changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #25 from Anto
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908088
--- Comment #26 from Jon Ciesla ---
Git done (by process-git-requests).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
__
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908088
Jon Ciesla changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
--
You are receiving this ma
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908088
--- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System ---
ascend-0.9.8-6.20140211svn4638.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora
20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ascend-0.9.8-6.20140211svn4638.fc20
--
You are receiving this mail becaus
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908088
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--
You are receiving
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908088
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #28 from Fedo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908088
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908088
Antonio Trande changed:
What|Removed |Added
Whiteboard||NotReady
--- Comment #4 from Antonio
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908088
Antonio Trande changed:
What|Removed |Added
Whiteboard|NotReady|
--- Comment #5 from Antonio Trande
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908088
Rex Dieter changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908088
--- Comment #7 from Rex Dieter ---
A few initial comments:
1. SHOULD drop deprecated rpm constructs, including Group: tags (unless you
plan on supporting building on/for epel-5)
2. SHOULD give script or detailed instructions on how to (re
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908088
--- Comment #8 from Antonio Trande ---
(In reply to Rex Dieter from comment #7)
> A few initial comments:
>
> 1. SHOULD drop deprecated rpm constructs, including Group: tags (unless
> you plan on supporting building on/for epel-5)
>
>
> 2.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908088
--- Comment #9 from Antonio Trande ---
Ascend may provide a Tcl/Tk user interface by the tktable. The latter package
was packaged in Fedora until two years ago.
Recently (May of 2013), it seems to have been resumed:
http://sourceforge.net/proj
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908088
--- Comment #10 from Antonio Trande ---
Spec URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/ascend/ascend.spec
SRPM URL:
http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/ascend/ascend-0.9.8-4.20140211svn4638.fc20.src.rpm
- Excluded CMSLV solver
- Included IDA solver o
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908088
Antonio Trande changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(rdie...@math.unl.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908088
Antonio Trande changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On|894604 |
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908088
Antonio Trande changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908088
Antonio Trande changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On||908090
--
You are rece
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908088
Antonio Trande changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On|908090 |
--
You are receiving
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908088
Antonio Trande changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On|908089 |
--
You are receiving
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908088
Antonio Trande changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On||908089, 908090
--
You
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908088
Bug 908088 depends on bug 908089, which changed state.
Bug 908089 Summary: Review Request: ipopt - Large-scale optimisation solver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908089
What|Removed
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908088
Antonio Trande changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On||894604
--- Comment #1 f
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908088
Antonio Trande changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On||920518
--
You are rece
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908088
--- Comment #2 from Antonio Trande ---
doc sub-package changed to noarch.
Spec URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/ascend/ascend.spec
SRPM URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/ascend/ascend-0.9.8-4.fc18.src.rpm
--
You are re
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908088
Michael Schwendt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |
--
You are receivin
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908088
Bug 908088 depends on bug 920518, which changed state.
Bug 920518 Summary: Review Request: metis - Serial Graph Partitioning and
Fill-reducing Matrix Ordering
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=920518
What
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908088
Bug 908088 depends on bug 908090, which changed state.
Bug 908090 Summary: Review Request: xgraph - XGraph with animation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908090
What|Removed |Added
-
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908088
--- Comment #3 from Antonio Trande ---
'xgraph' Requires removed.
Spec URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/ascend/ascend.spec
SRPM URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/ascend/ascend-0.9.8-5.fc18.src.rpm
--
You are receiving
44 matches
Mail list logo
