https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=971103
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=971103
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #29 from Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=971103
--- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System ---
bsd-mailx-8.1.2-4.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bsd-mailx-8.1.2-4.el6
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=971103
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--
You are receiving th
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=971103
--- Comment #27 from Peter Schiffer ---
Oh, OK. Thanks for the info.
--
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=6kNhldyhLW&a=cc_unsubscribe
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=971103
Jon Ciesla changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||limburg...@gmail.com
--- Comment #26 from J
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=971103
Jon Ciesla changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=971103
Peter Schiffer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|Package Review |Package Review
Version|rawhi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=971103
Peter Schiffer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #25 from Peter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=971103
Peter Schiffer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(pschiffe@redhat.c |
|om)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=971103
Douglas Schilling Landgraf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pschi...@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=971103
--- Comment #22 from Peter Schiffer ---
Fixed.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/15321270/bsd-mailx.spec
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/15321270/bsd-mailx-8.1.2-3.el6.src.rpm
peter
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=971103
--- Comment #21 from Douglas Schilling Landgraf ---
Hi Peter,
We are almost there, can you please handle:
%clean
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
It's for EPEL5.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25clean
Thanks
Douglas
--
You are r
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=971103
--- Comment #20 from Peter Schiffer ---
Hi Eduardo.
(In reply to Eduardo Echeverria from comment #19)
> Hi @Peter
>
> I haven't reviewed the package thoroughly, but I have a comments for you
>
> - The package has buildroot, for el6 it is not n
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=971103
Eduardo Echeverria changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||echevemas...@gmail.com
--- Comment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=971103
--- Comment #18 from Peter Schiffer ---
I've just updated the .spec file and srpm, now with OpenBSD as upstream.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=971103
--- Comment #17 from Peter Schiffer ---
(In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #16)
> No. Debian imports all packages into their VCS, independently of a package's
> master format (They usually unpackage the tarball).
Not 100% true. I've checke
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=971103
--- Comment #16 from Ralf Corsepius ---
(In reply to Peter Schiffer from comment #15)
> I've updated .spec file and srpm package.
>
> I've kept Debian as upstream. OpenBSD has only CVS method of getting their
> sources, without any web pages ded
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=971103
--- Comment #15 from Peter Schiffer ---
I've updated .spec file and srpm package.
I've kept Debian as upstream. OpenBSD has only CVS method of getting their
sources, without any web pages dedicated to their packages, or possibility to
download t
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=971103
Rex Dieter changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rdie...@math.unl.edu
--- Comment #14 from R
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=971103
--- Comment #13 from Peter Schiffer ---
This package is intended only for EPEL6, because we need it as an alternative
to the mailx package. Mailx package in RHEL-5 is based on this, bsd-mailx, but
in RHEL-6 it's based on heirloom mailx, which is
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=971103
--- Comment #12 from Ralf Corsepius ---
I think you should point to OpenBSD sources, not use the Debian tarball
and to adopt the Debian patches individually.
This is what most other packagers do. They adopt "Debian patches", in cases
they are s
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=971103
--- Comment #11 from Peter Schiffer ---
(In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #10)
>
> According to
> http://ftp-master.metadata.debian.org/changelogs/main/b/bsd-mailx/
> unstable_changelog upstream is OpenBSD.
Yes, bsd-mailx is from OpenBSD
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=971103
Ralf Corsepius changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rc040...@freenet.de
--- Comment #10 fro
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=971103
--- Comment #9 from Peter Schiffer ---
Douglas,
listing 24 non-redhat patches doesn't make .spec file clear and simple, in my
opinion.
Upstream is Debian, which is not dead. Not actively developed means no new
features are added any more, but c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=971103
--- Comment #8 from Douglas Schilling Landgraf ---
Hi Peter,
(In reply to Peter Schiffer from comment #7)
> Hi Douglas,
>
> ah yes, I know about this error and I've already checked it. In this case,
> this shouldn't be a problem because the gid
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=971103
--- Comment #7 from Peter Schiffer ---
Hi Douglas,
ah yes, I know about this error and I've already checked it. In this case, this
shouldn't be a problem because the gid is not changed, the bsd-mailx binary
doesn't have suid and sgid flags.
Thi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=971103
--- Comment #6 from Douglas Schilling Landgraf ---
Hi Peter,
Please break Source1 into multiple patch lines, it helps to debug things like
below:
Rpmlint
---
Checking: bsd-mailx-8.1.2-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm
bsd-mailx.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-s
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=971103
--- Comment #5 from Peter Schiffer ---
Done, .spec file and srpm are updated.
--
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=z7npWYiKuF&a=cc_unsubsc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=971103
--- Comment #4 from Douglas Schilling Landgraf ---
(In reply to Peter Schiffer from comment #3)
> Hi Douglas,
>
> this is only for EL6. I've added those because rpmlint in EL6 was
> complaining about it. Should I remove them?
>
> peter
Yes. I
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=971103
--- Comment #3 from Peter Schiffer ---
Hi Douglas,
this is only for EL6. I've added those because rpmlint in EL6 was complaining
about it. Should I remove them?
peter
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=971103
Douglas Schilling Landgraf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 fro
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=971103
--- Comment #1 from Peter Schiffer ---
I've updated .spec file to be compliant with the RHEL-6 rpmlint (added
buildroot tag, defattr, %clean section). Updated .spec and srpm are on the same
URL as in description.
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=971103
Douglas Schilling Landgraf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dougsl...@redhat.com
34 matches
Mail list logo
