[Bug 189092] Review Request: boo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: boo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=189092 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora Version|devel |rawhide -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189092] Review Request: boo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: boo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189092 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189092] Review Request: boo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: boo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189092
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-26 06:05 EST ---
Shouldn't this package own the %{monodir}/boo directory?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189092] Review Request: boo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: boo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189092
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-26 09:27 EST ---
(In reply to comment #33)
Shouldn't this package own the %{monodir}/boo directory?
Good catch, yes it should. Add it before building.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189092] Review Request: boo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: boo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189092 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-24 21:17 EST --- (In reply to comment #27) #25 - how can boo require boo to build? Actually the patch adds BR nant, I just spaced out when writing the post. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189092] Review Request: boo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: boo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189092 Bug 189092 depends on bug 193957, which changed state. Bug 193957 Summary: Review Request: nant https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193957 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|NEW |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189092] Review Request: boo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: boo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189092
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-21 22:02 EST ---
Redefining libdir is a no-no. You could do like alexl did in the mono package
and define a monodir that = %{prefix}/lib if you want until mono-core moves.
(And then change monodir to _libdir)
I don't see a gacutils invocation. Is nant handling that?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189092] Review Request: boo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: boo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189092 Bug 189092 depends on bug 193957, which changed state. Bug 193957 Summary: Review Request: nant https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193957 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |NOTABUG Resolution|NOTABUG |NEXTRELEASE Resolution|NEXTRELEASE | Status|CLOSED |NEW -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189092] Review Request: boo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: boo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189092 Bug 189092 depends on bug 193957, which changed state. Bug 193957 Summary: Review Request: nant https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193957 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189092] Review Request: boo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: boo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189092 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-05 23:34 EST --- Needs nant to build = needs nant as a BuildRequires. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189092] Review Request: boo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: boo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189092 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] BugsThisDependsOn||193957 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-04 17:09 EST --- This needs NAnt to build, NAnt is marked for review here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193957 or this happens duing build: + nant -D:install.prefix=/usr -D:install.libdir=/usr/lib /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.63861: line 23: nant: command not found error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.63861 (%build) RPM build errors: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.63861 (%build) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189092] Review Request: boo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: boo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189092 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 18:59 EST --- Spec URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/boo.spec SRPM URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/boo-0.7.6.2237-2.src.rpm - added gtksourceview-1.0 to files as I'd missed it on -1 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189092] Review Request: boo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: boo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189092 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 04:49 EST --- Spec URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/boo.spec SRPM URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/boo-0.7.6.2237-1.src.rpm - Bump to new version Multiple changes to the spec file Ensure that there are no ownership problems Disabled debug package (empty) Repeat after me... nant is insane. nant is bad. nant is unpleasant -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189092] Review Request: boo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: boo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189092 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-07 06:15 EST --- Good catch. I'm trying to build 2237 which needs nant. However, there doesn't seem to be a way to pass values to alter the default.build. I'm chasing the 2234 sources in the meantime -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189092] Review Request: boo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: boo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189092 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-06 22:45 EST --- Unless there's a special exception for mono apps that I don't know about, this package needs to contain sources. It currently contains a tarball of boo binaries, not a tarball of the boo sources. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189092] Review Request: boo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: boo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189092 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-04 09:33 EST --- Spec URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/boo.spec SRPM URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/boo-0.7.5.2013-7.src.rpm Change of URL -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189092] Review Request: boo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: boo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189092 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-04 15:21 EST --- Spec URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/boo.spec SRPM URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/boo-0.7.6.2234-1.src.rpm Changelog Bump to newer version (2237 has build issues) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189092] Review Request: boo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: boo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189092 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-03 09:41 EST --- I've started looking at getting 0.7.6.2237 in instead of 2013. The problem is that nant (which is now waiting to be included in extras) doesn't seem to have the equivalent of make install, so I'll have to hack around and basically copy things manually :-( -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189092] Review Request: boo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: boo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189092 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-01 05:04 EST --- Spec URL: http://www.smmp.salford.ac.uk/packages/boo.spec SRPM URL: http://www.smmp.salford.ac.uk/packages/boo-0.7.5.2013-7.src.rpm Lots of fixes and is now happy on x86_64/ia64 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189092] Review Request: boo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: boo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189092 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-01 17:01 EST --- (Meanwhile, upstream version is 0.7.6.2237.) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189092] Review Request: boo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: boo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189092 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-01 18:19 EST --- I know - however, I'm working off the released tarballs which currently sit at 0.7.6.2103. Currently, my dev system at work uses 2237 and it has issues. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189092] Review Request: boo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: boo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189092 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-06 06:37 EST --- (In reply to comment #10) pkgconfigdir=$(prefix)/$(libdir)/pkgconfig The configure script then exports either lib or lib64 depending on what is passed in using --libdir Without knowing a thing about mono stuff, that looks wrong to me. Did you mean $(prefix)/$(lib)/pkgconfig (or something else that doesn't have the potential of having the prefix inserted twice in the path)? $(libdir) usually already contains $(prefix). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189092] Review Request: boo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: boo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189092
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-04 18:20 EST ---
My latest build attempt on FC5 x86_64 at your latest srpm attempt gives:
Processing files: boo-0.7.5.2013-4
error: File not found: /var/tmp/boo-0.7.5.2013-4-root-mockbuild/usr/lib64/boo
error: File not found by glob:
/var/tmp/boo-0.7.5.2013-4-root-mockbuild/usr/lib64/mono/*
error: File not found by glob:
/var/tmp/boo-0.7.5.2013-4-root-mockbuild/usr/lib64/pkgconfig/*.pc
error: File not found by glob:
/var/tmp/boo-0.7.5.2013-4-root-mockbuild/usr/share/mime/packages/*
Note the /usr/lib64. The build logs are installing that stuff in /usr/lib.
Redefining %{_libdir} is one way to fix this.
Also looking the build logs, it's dropping the /usr prefix for the mime stuff
because the configure script is not figuring out a shared-mime-info prefix.
Summary:
shared-mime-info prefix:
gtksourceview-1.0 prefix: /usr
boo prefix: /usr
test -z /share/mime/packages/ || mkdir -p --
/var/tmp/boo-0.7.5.2013-4-root-mockbuild/share/mime/packages/
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189092] Review Request: boo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: boo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189092 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-04 19:00 EST --- Yep - I'm getting that problem here as well. The configure.in script looks fine and passing --prefix=/usr on the configure line makes no difference what-so-ever, so something is going wrong somewhere, I'm just at a loss as to where. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189092] Review Request: boo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: boo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189092 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-04-28 02:45 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) Odd. This is building fine outside of mock. Could this be an selinux problem (ISTR seeing something similar with a C# package reported on the extras list)? This looks to me more like a missing buildreq than an SELinux issue. Are the missing files generated by some tool that needs to be buildreq-ed? I think it would be a very good idea for you to try out a local mock setup as it's *great* for finding things like this. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189092] Review Request: boo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: boo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189092 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-04-27 17:13 EST --- Odd. This is building fine outside of mock. Could this be an selinux problem (ISTR seeing something similar with a C# package reported on the extras list)? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
