https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992
Nicolas Chauvet changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|3 |
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992
Nicolas Chauvet changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992
--- Comment #45 from Alec Leamas 2013-04-03 21:02:55
CEST ---
Hm... tchol.org seems to be down. Any chance to make links available, by fixing
tchol.org or use some different host?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992
--- Comment #44 from T.C. Hollingsworth 2013-01-02
07:05:46 CET ---
Sorry, this slipped under my radar for awhile.
I have asked Fedora Legal for confirmation whether or not this package is
acceptable for inclusion in Fedora proper:
http://list
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992
Göran Uddeborg changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|4, 33 |3
--- Comment #43 from Göran Uddeborg
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992
--- Comment #42 from Hans de Goede 2012-11-14
08:52:50 CET ---
To me the center of the whole discussion is code versus content. Downloaders
for non-free content are fine, and are often even in Fedora, but this is not a
downloader for non free c
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992
Alec Leamas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||leamas.a...@gmail.com
--- Comment #41 fro
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992
Rex Dieter changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rdie...@math.unl.edu
--- Comment #40 from
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992
--- Comment #39 from Göran Uddeborg 2012-11-12 15:49:24
CET ---
> the above is simply arguing that a circle is also a square
I was only trying to understand the instructions.
What I read at http://rpmfusion.org/Contributors#Your_package_gets_
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992
Hans de Goede changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||j.w.r.dego...@gmail.com
--- Comment #38
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992
Göran Uddeborg changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|3 |4, 33
--- Comment #37 from Göran Uddeb
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992
Nicolas Chauvet changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|4, 33 |3
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugz
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992
--- Comment #36 from Nicolas Chauvet 2012-11-06 22:03:17
CET ---
(In reply to comment #0)
...
> This package is not eligible for Fedora because, while it is free itself, it
> is
> used to install numerous non-free software packages. Typically
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992
T.C. Hollingsworth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||33
--- Comment #35 from T.C. Holli
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992
--- Comment #34 from T.C. Hollingsworth 2012-11-04
05:20:35 CET ---
(In reply to comment #33)
> > I did it that way because somewhere I got the impression that %build should
> > do
> > nothing for noarch packages.
>
> Uh, that sounds odd. Wh
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992
Göran Uddeborg changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|3 |4
--- Comment #33 from Göran Uddeborg
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992
--- Comment #32 from Richard 2012-10-30 03:21:45 CET ---
> > - Why do you explicitly install COPYING, and list it with the full path?
> > Why
> > not just do "%doc %SOURCE2" in the %files section, and take advantage of the
> > automatic handli
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992
--- Comment #31 from T.C. Hollingsworth 2012-10-30
02:51:07 CET ---
Thanks for taking this!
(In reply to comment #30)
> Issues
> ==
> - As mentioned in comment 29, the source package does not contain the correct
> version of the script.
F
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992
--- Comment #30 from Göran Uddeborg 2012-10-27 21:47:32
CEST ---
Alright, here is my review:
Keys
[+] package passes
[0] not applicable
[-] package fails
Issues
==
- As mentioned in comment 29, the source package does not contain the
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992
--- Comment #29 from Göran Uddeborg 2012-10-23 22:02:48
CEST ---
Eh, your updated SRPM does not seem to contain the version of winetricks it
claims it should. Something went wrong in the packaging?
22:00 freddi$ curl
http://tchol.org/rpmfusio
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992
Göran Uddeborg changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992
--- Comment #27 from T.C. Hollingsworth 2012-09-30
04:06:27 CEST ---
Updated to latest upstream release:
Spec: http://tchol.org/rpmfusion/winetricks.spec
SRPM: http://tchol.org/rpmfusion/winetricks-20120912-1.fc17.src.rpm
--
Configure bugm
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992
--- Comment #26 from T.C. Hollingsworth 2012-07-17
04:09:00 CEST ---
Updated to latest upstream release and fixed to build on F17:
Spec: http://tchol.org/rpmfusion/winetricks.spec
SRPM: http://tchol.org/rpmfusion/winetricks-20120308-1.fc17.s
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992
--- Comment #25 from T.C. Hollingsworth 2012-07-17 03:15:41
CEST ---
(In reply to comment #24)
> please create an account in fas.rpmfusion.org with the same email and apply to
> the cvsextras group.
Done with username "patches". (Same as upstre
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992
--- Comment #24 from Nicolas Chauvet 2012-07-16 18:56:10
CEST ---
(In reply to comment #23)
> I'm now a Fedora packager.
please create an account in fas.rpmfusion.org with the same email and apply to
the cvsextras group.
--
Configure bugmail:
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992
T.C. Hollingsworth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|30 |
--- Comment #23 from T.C. Holling
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992
--- Comment #22 from T.C. Hollingsworth 2012-01-19 12:25:25
CET ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> (In reply to comment #15)
> > Maybe one last reason: if gksudo or kdesudo is not present, winetricks will
> > use
> > sudo. Fedora doesn't provide
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992
--- Comment #21 from T.C. Hollingsworth 2012-01-19 12:14:44
CET ---
(In reply to comment #20)
> (In reply to comment #19)
> > That might be PolicyKit upstream's default, but in Fedora it always asks for
> > the current user's password.
> I'm af
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992
--- Comment #20 from Mohamed El Morabity 2012-01-19
10:45:57 CET ---
(In reply to comment #19)
> That might be PolicyKit upstream's default, but in Fedora it always asks for
> the current user's password.
I'm afraid to tell you it's not ^^.
--
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992
--- Comment #19 from T.C. Hollingsworth 2012-01-19 10:43:28
CET ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> > (In reply to comment #16)
> > > Having a graphical prompt asking for the root password is a security hole?
> > pkexec requests the currently runni
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992
--- Comment #18 from Mohamed El Morabity 2012-01-19
10:28:39 CET ---
> (In reply to comment #16)
> > Having a graphical prompt asking for the root password is a security hole?
> pkexec requests the currently running user's password (like sudo),
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992
--- Comment #17 from T.C. Hollingsworth 2012-01-19 10:23:05
CET ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> Maybe one last reason: if gksudo or kdesudo is not present, winetricks will
> use
> sudo. Fedora doesn't provide gksudo, neither kdesudo. If winetr
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992
--- Comment #16 from Mohamed El Morabity 2012-01-19
10:03:55 CET ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> That checkbox must be checked for the user to be able to gain root access via
> PolicyKit too. (To do otherwise would be a massive security hole.
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992
--- Comment #15 from Mohamed El Morabity 2012-01-19
09:58:49 CET ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> That checkbox just adds users to the "wheel" group. Both sudo and PolicyKit
> are
> configured in modern Fedora to grant root access to users in t
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992
--- Comment #14 from T.C. Hollingsworth 2012-01-19 04:08:29
CET ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> > Since Fedora 15 anyone marked as an
> > administrator has sudo access from the command line.
> If I remember well, it's not enabled by default (a
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992
--- Comment #13 from Mohamed El Morabity 2012-01-19
00:10:42 CET ---
> Are you taking over the review request from T.C. then?
No, I just wanted to bring a different view on the package. It's still T.C.'s
review, and I'm not a sponsor here ^^.
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992
--- Comment #12 from Richard 2012-01-18 16:13:30 CET ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> I've packaged winetricks too, I put the .spec and the src.rpm if it can help:
> http://pikachu.2014.free.fr/public/packages/winetricks/winetricks.spec
Are yo
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992
Mohamed El Morabity changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pikachu.2...@gmail.com
--- Commen
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992
--- Comment #10 from Richard 2011-12-10 02:58:26 CET ---
Yeah, I'm sure he had his reasoning, but IMHO, you should prefer upstream
packaging over doing your own (in this case, that means no packaging) and
prefer releases over SVN snapshots.
In
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992
--- Comment #9 from T.C. Hollingsworth 2011-12-10 01:13:38 CET
---
(In reply to comment #8)
> I'm confused. Since this is such a small script and upstream does not provide
> a
> tarball, why bother compressing it?
>
> Couldn't you just use th
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992
Richard changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hobbes1...@gmail.com
--- Comment #8 from Rich
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992
Sérgio Basto changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ser...@serjux.com
--- Comment #7 from
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992
--- Comment #6 from Xavier Bachelot 2011-10-20 14:50:19
---
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > The release tag is not correct. It should be 2.20110629svn666. See
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidel
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992
--- Comment #5 from T.C. Hollingsworth 2011-10-20 14:21:30 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> The release tag is not correct. It should be 2.20110629svn666. See
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages
It's
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992
--- Comment #4 from Xavier Bachelot 2011-10-20 13:46:28
---
rpmlint on the srpm is not clean :
winetricks.src: W: strange-permission winetricks.spec 0600L
winetricks.src: W: no-%build-section
winetricks.src: W: invalid-url Source0: winetric
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992
--- Comment #3 from Xavier Bachelot 2011-10-20 12:25:07
---
The release tag is not correct. It should be 2.20110629svn666. See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages
You'd rather use svn export to gener
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992
--- Comment #2 from T.C. Hollingsworth 2011-10-19 17:21:09 ---
Thanks! I've fixed it up according to your suggestions.
Spec: http://tchol.org/rpmfusion/winetricks.spec
SRPM: http://tchol.org/rpmfusion/winetricks-20110629-2.fc16.src.rpm
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992
Xavier Bachelot changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xav...@bachelot.org
--- Comment #1
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992
T.C. Hollingsworth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||2, 30
--
Configure bugmail: ht
49 matches
Mail list logo
