https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1530
--- Comment #6 from Sam Hegarty 2012-01-27 03:13:27 CET
---
Created attachment 789
--> https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/attachment.cgi?id=789
patch that goes with the spec file
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cg
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1530
--- Comment #5 from Sam Hegarty 2012-01-27 03:12:34 CET
---
Created attachment 788
--> https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/attachment.cgi?id=788
updated spec file
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
-
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2104
Jeremy Newton changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|rpmfusion-package-review@rp |alexjn...@hotmail.com
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2104
Jeremy Newton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #7 from Jeremy New
Hello everybody,
I'm a Fedora sponsored packager. I have now created my rpmfusion account
and according to
http://rpmfusion.org/Contributors#head-643ba68e754c44d2db673ad9aea6a843ad0b7fb3
I should be now able to review rpmfusion packages as well. However it's not
clear to me what is the process t
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2101
--- Comment #16 from Jeremy Newton 2012-01-27 01:29:24
CET ---
Thanks! :)
Also, earlier today I managed to figure out the issue I had with the latest
version 1.8.0.1054 and I just updated the SPEC. So here's the newer version
instead:
SPEC:
h
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2104
--- Comment #6 from Jirka 2012-01-27 01:21:53 CET
---
Hi Jeremy,
I took your BZ https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2101
and I plan to review it over the weekend.
Review guidelines are at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Rev
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2101
Jirka changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|rpmfusion-package-review@rp |hladky.j...@googlemail.com
|m
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1252
Mohamed El Morabity changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2101
--- Comment #15 from Jirka 2012-01-27 01:12:34 CET
---
Hi Jeremy,
I have taken this BZ as I plan to do the formal review hopefully over the
weekend.
Thanks
Jirka
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2101
Jirka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1034
--- Comment #19 from Richard 2012-01-26 16:12:24 CET ---
Figured it out! The montage command actually handles this nicely.
Something like this should do it:
# Create square icons from logo file.
montage -crop +0+1 -background white -geometry +0
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1034
--- Comment #18 from Richard 2012-01-26 15:09:10 CET ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> Small ping to say that I'm not dead! I'm overwhelmed by my current job right
> now and don't have all the time I would wish for this package but that will
> com
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1034
--- Comment #17 from Jean-Francois Saucier 2012-01-26
14:00:22 CET ---
Small ping to say that I'm not dead! I'm overwhelmed by my current job right
now and don't have all the time I would wish for this package but that will
come soon.
I got to
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1615
--- Comment #4 from Tim Niemueller 2012-01-26 10:35:16 CET
---
Yes I am! I have uploaded a new version at
http://www.niemueller.de/share/openni-nite-1.4.1.2-1.fc15.src.rpm. The spec
file has been changed in place.
--
Configure bugmail: https:
Philip Prindeville wrote on 26.01.2012 09:04:
> On 1/26/12 12:43 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Philip Prindeville wrote:
> [...]
> It's more of a tooling issue as I see it than an organizational
> requirement on how the .spec should be managed.
>
> I'd rather fix the tool than work around it.
Then I
Alec Leamas wrote:
> The standard questions:
> - Yes, the library has been modified. The overall diff is >6000 lines,
> baselined w latest svn version.
> - Ilya, the Bombono developer, has been in contact w John Torjo, the
> author of the package. As I understand the situation, John torjo has
> los
Philip Prindeville wrote:
> This is a variant of that scenario. If the version number of the rpm has
> changed (as well as the timestamp), but the content manifest and hash of
> the contents themselves remains identical, rpm should not update the
> package.
Changing RPM would achieve almost nothi
Hi,
On 01/25/2012 11:00 PM, Alec Leamas wrote:
Applying for bundling exception: boost-logging in bombono-dvd
I think this is a reasonable request, so ack from me (but lets wait
a few days to see if others disagree).
Regards,
Hans
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1615
Gianluca Sforna changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gia...@gmail.com
--- Comment #3 from
On 1/26/12 12:43 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Philip Prindeville wrote:
>> In the case of a trivial (and invariant!) -kmod-common file, should we be
>> allowed to keep everything in a single .spec?
>
> That would mean the package gets needlessly updated each time the kmod is
> rebuilt from a new ker
21 matches
Mail list logo
