http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396
Eric Moret changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396
--- Comment #49 from Thorsten Leemhuis 2009-06-30
21:10:20 ---
package create in CVS; sorry for the delay
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396
--- Comment #48 from Andrea Musuruane 2009-06-24 10:02:31
---
(In reply to comment #47)
> There is also the case:
> A "free" package that depends on a "nonfree" package goes to the "nonfree"
> repo.
> (This is not relevant to paintdotnet)
T
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396
--- Comment #47 from Orcan Ogetbil 2009-06-23 21:05:11
---
(In reply to comment #46)
> I just edited the Configuration and the Contributors pages to give more
> emphasis to the following text (taken from
> http://rpmfusion.org/AnnounceReposi
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396
--- Comment #46 from Andrea Musuruane 2009-06-23 09:52:40
---
(In reply to comment #45)
> I tried to find a more detailed explanation of both repo free|nonfree but
> could
> not find it in the wiki. It would be nice to have a page explainin
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396
--- Comment #45 from Eric Moret 2009-06-23 01:21:10 ---
I tried to find a more detailed explanation of both repo free|nonfree but could
not find it in the wiki. It would be nice to have a page explaining what goes
in free and what does not.
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396
--- Comment #44 from Orcan Ogetbil 2009-06-23 01:14:28
---
Eric, this software is *not* free!
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396
--- Comment #43 from Eric Moret 2009-06-23 00:57:04 ---
Package CVS request
==
Package Name:paintdotnet
Short Description:A mono port of the Paint.NET image editor
Owners:emoret
Branches:F-10,F-11,devel
InitialCC:
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396
--- Comment #42 from Orcan Ogetbil 2009-06-20 19:42:55
---
Alright, I'm approving the package because the packaging itself is good to go.
But I'm not sure if it makes sense to ship this with broken save and print
features. Well, you are the
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396
--- Comment #41 from Eric Moret 2009-06-18 19:41:57 ---
I do have the same issues, please keep in mind that this project is still in
beta mode and as more features from .Net are ported to Mono things will start
to behave better. The won't cre
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396
--- Comment #40 from Orcan Ogetbil 2009-06-18 17:55:34
---
Alright. Packagingwise, evelything seems fine.
But I have problems with running this program.
1- Whenever I save a file, the output file has 0 size and hence it is useless.
2- I ca
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396
Eric Moret changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eric.mo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #39 fro
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396
--- Comment #38 from Orcan Ogetbil 2009-06-18 16:50:59
---
Wrong again. The main package was correct but the devel was not.
Now both are incorrect:
The main package does not own the files inside %{_libdir}/paintdotnet/ because
now you used
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396
--- Comment #37 from Eric Moret 2009-06-18 16:28:57 ---
OK, same link as above with (hopefully) correct changes.
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: -
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396
--- Comment #36 from Orcan Ogetbil 2009-06-18 09:34:50
---
Nope. In this case you list some files twice, which is against the guidelines.
In the %files section, when you write a directory name without a %dir label,
the contents of that direc
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396
--- Comment #35 from Eric Moret 2009-06-18 08:51:23 ---
Indeed, just added the orphan directory:
ftp://ftp.zouric.com/public/linux/paintdotnet/paintdotnet.spec
ftp://ftp.zouric.com/public/linux/paintdotnet/paintdotnet-0.1.63-5.fc11.src.rpm
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396
Orcan Ogetbil changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|3 |4
--- Comment #34 from Orcan Ogetbil
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396
--- Comment #33 from Eric Moret 2009-06-16 02:05:46 ---
Let me know if that version works for everybody:
ftp://ftp.zouric.com/public/linux/paintdotnet/paintdotnet.spec
ftp://ftp.zouric.com/public/linux/paintdotnet/paintdotnet-0.1.63-4.fc11.s
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396
--- Comment #32 from Jussi Lehtola 2009-06-05 11:52:11
---
Yes, I'd suggest putting the .pc files into %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/name unless
upstream fixes the naming issue.
Renaming is also possible, but that breaks compatibility with upstream.
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396
--- Comment #31 from Paul Howarth 2009-06-05 11:48:04 ---
(In reply to comment #29)
> Thanks, the specfile is good now. However the names of some of the .pc files
> bother me:
>/usr/lib64/pkgconfig/data.pc
>/usr/lib64/pkgconfig/effect
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396
--- Comment #30 from Orcan Ogetbil 2009-06-05 04:00:06
---
Also, please see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_tricks#Use_of_common_namespace
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_package_names_packaging_guideline_draft#Potential_Conflic
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396
--- Comment #29 from Orcan Ogetbil 2009-06-05 03:54:52
---
Thanks, the specfile is good now. However the names of some of the .pc files
bother me:
/usr/lib64/pkgconfig/data.pc
/usr/lib64/pkgconfig/effects.pc
/usr/lib64/pkgconfig/pd
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396
--- Comment #28 from Eric Moret 2009-06-04 08:57:51 ---
> Btw, is mono.ppc64 available now on RHEL5?
Indeed it does not seem to be.
Latest version at:
ftp://ftp.zouric.com/public/linux/paintdotnet/paintdotnet.spec
ftp://ftp.zouric.com/publi
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396
--- Comment #27 from Orcan Ogetbil 2009-05-27 11:07:52
---
By the way, you can BR ImageMagick and convert the ico files to png (or
whatever) with
convert file.ico file.png
during the build so that you don't have to supply additional sourc
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396
--- Comment #26 from Orcan Ogetbil 2009-05-27 08:12:10
---
(In reply to comment #25)
Thanks for the update!
> > ! Remember that mono is not available on ppc64 for Fedora < 11. So if you
> > want to build paintdotnet on Fedora < 11 you wil
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396
--- Comment #25 from Eric Moret 2009-05-27 01:54:46 ---
> ! Remember that mono is not available on ppc64 for Fedora < 11. So if you want
> to build paintdotnet on Fedora < 11 you will need to use an ExcludeArch.
I have made a tentative chang
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396
Paul Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||p...@city-fan.org
--- Comment #24 from
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396
--- Comment #23 from Jussi Lehtola 2009-05-22 10:19:35
---
(In reply to comment #21)
> ! Remember that mono is not available on ppc64 for Fedora < 11. So if you want
> to build paintdotnet on Fedora < 11 you will need to use an ExcludeArch.
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396
--- Comment #22 from Orcan Ogetbil 2009-05-22 04:47:37
---
> ! Please explain in the SPEC file as a comment what is MIT, what is
> CC-BY-NC-ND.
By this, I mean: what part of paintdotnet is MIT, what part is CC-BY-NC-ND?
--
Configure bug
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396
Orcan Ogetbil changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--
Configure bugmail: http:
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396
Orcan Ogetbil changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|2 |3
AssignedTo|rpmfusion-package-
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396
--- Comment #20 from Kevin Kofler 2009-04-28 19:05:44
---
The old desktop-file-install in CentOS 5 (which he wants to support) requires
it, and it won't break on Fedora either. Nor will it make any actual difference
as long as the vendor is
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396
--- Comment #19 from Orcan Ogetbil 2009-04-28 18:38:20
---
(In reply to comment #18)
> You have to use --vendor="" to install the .desktop file without setting a
> vendor.
>
Nope, not anymore:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidel
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396
--- Comment #18 from Kevin Kofler 2009-04-28 13:43:21
---
You have to use --vendor="" to install the .desktop file without setting a
vendor.
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are recei
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396
--- Comment #17 from Eric Moret 2009-04-27 06:35:35 ---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=497766
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396
--- Comment #16 from Orcan Ogetbil 2009-04-26 21:04:28
---
Thanks Eric!
(In reply to comment #15)
> (In reply to comment #14)
>
> > * Please don't use a --vendor flag on desktop-file-install
>
> I had to include this for me to be able to
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396
--- Comment #15 from Eric Moret 2009-04-25 07:24:24 ---
Thank you for spending the time reviewing this package. Please see inline
below.
(In reply to comment #14)
> Thanks. A few comments:
>
> * Upstream provides a tarball on their website
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396
--- Comment #14 from Orcan Ogetbil 2009-04-03 18:47:31
---
Thanks. A few comments:
* Upstream provides a tarball on their website:
http://code.google.com/p/paint-mono/downloads/list
Any reason why that one is not used?
* Is it really no
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396
--- Comment #13 from Eric Moret 2009-04-03 09:59:31 ---
Indeed, I have reorganized my server the links should now be:
ftp://ftp.zouric.com/public/linux/paintdotnet/paintdotnet.spec
ftp://ftp.zouric.com/public/linux/paintdotnet/paintdotnet-0.
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396
Orcan Ogetbil changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||oget.fed...@gmail.com
--- Comment #12
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396
--- Comment #11 from Eric Moret 2009-02-25 19:07:20 ---
SPEC:
ftp://ftp.zouric.com/public/paintdotnet/paintdotnet.spec
SRPM:
ftp://ftp.zouric.com/public/paintdotnet/paintdotnet-0.1-0.4.63svn.fc10.src.rpm
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzi
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396
--- Comment #10 from Andrea Musuruane 2009-02-25 10:20:31
---
(In reply to comment #9)
> I have updated the package again with a script to generate the tarball from
> cvs
> and remove the unlicensed dll
Can you please post the link to the
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396
--- Comment #9 from Eric Moret 2009-02-25 06:58:28 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> You can request the logo and the icons to the Fedora Artwork team:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Artwork/DesignService
Request below:
https://fedoraproject.
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396
--- Comment #8 from Andrea Musuruane 2009-02-24 10:39:57
---
(In reply to comment #7)
> I have updated the package to get rid of those DLLs as they are not used under
> Linux according to upstream
> (http://groups.google.com/group/mono-paint
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396
--- Comment #7 from Eric Moret 2009-02-24 08:16:51 ---
I have updated the package to get rid of those DLLs as they are not used under
Linux according to upstream
(http://groups.google.com/group/mono-paint-port/browse_thread/thread/ca99406b3e9
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396
--- Comment #6 from Andrea Musuruane 2009-02-23 14:39:19
---
Here it is an update from fedora-legal-list:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legal-list/2009-February/msg00028.html
It is now mandatory to clear the status about the above
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396
--- Comment #5 from Andrea Musuruane 2009-02-20 23:33:48
---
(In reply to comment #4)
> I have addressed the above issues. As for the license, in addition to the icon
> issue, the source tarball ships with 2 dll which might not be free:
> ./
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396
--- Comment #4 from Eric Moret 2009-02-20 23:10:24 ---
I have addressed the above issues. As for the license, in addition to the icon
issue, the source tarball ships with 2 dll which might not be free:
./Interop.WIA/Interop.WIA.dll
./Microsof
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396
--- Comment #3 from Kevin Kofler 2009-02-20 22:25:32
---
License should say CC-BY-NC-ND instead of CC-BY-ND.
But I agree with the sentiment that the offending artwork should simply be
replaced, making the program Free Software and eligible
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396
--- Comment #2 from Andrea Musuruane 2009-02-20 21:20:24
---
About the package you submitted:
* the icon is not displayed because you don't update the icon cache:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#GTK.2B_icon_cache
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396
--- Comment #1 from Andrea Musuruane 2009-02-20 20:39:16
---
(In reply to comment #0)
> Not eligible to Fedora: from fedora wishlist:
> # paint-mono - An unofficial effort to port Paint.NET 3.0 to Linux using
> Mono
> - Cannot be include
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396
Eric Moret changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||2
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla
52 matches
Mail list logo
