[Bug 851180] Review Request: mingw-lcms - MinGW Color Management System

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851180

Igor Gnatenko  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Alias|mingw-lcms  |



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 851180] Review Request: mingw-lcms - MinGW Color Management System

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851180

--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
mingw-lcms-1.19-3.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.

-- 
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=Llpvdu7u9ca=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 851180] Review Request: mingw-lcms - MinGW Color Management System

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851180

Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE
Last Closed||2013-01-16 14:20:43

-- 
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=IGied32w78a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 851180] Review Request: mingw-lcms - MinGW Color Management System

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851180

--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
mingw-lcms-1.19-3.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.

-- 
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=j2QHRj8Uk8a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 851180] Review Request: mingw-lcms - MinGW Color Management System

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851180

greg.helli...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|greg.helli...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review+

--- Comment #9 from greg.helli...@gmail.com ---
Great. Setting review(+), in that case.

-- 
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=bHsfpCaHqka=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 851180] Review Request: mingw-lcms - MinGW Color Management System

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851180

Thomas Sailer t.sai...@alumni.ethz.ch changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-cvs?

--- Comment #10 from Thomas Sailer t.sai...@alumni.ethz.ch ---
Thanks Greg!

New Package SCM Request
===
Package Name: mingw-lcms
Short Description: MinGW Color Management System
Owners: sailer
Branches: f17 f18
InitialCC:

-- 
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=F2UhR4n5Sqa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 851180] Review Request: mingw-lcms - MinGW Color Management System

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851180

--- Comment #11 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com ---
Git done (by process-git-requests).

-- 
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=KjTXl2aCj7a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 851180] Review Request: mingw-lcms - MinGW Color Management System

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851180

Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |MODIFIED

-- 
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=dyy8cBxZHHa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 851180] Review Request: mingw-lcms - MinGW Color Management System

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851180

--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
mingw-lcms-1.19-3.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mingw-lcms-1.19-3.fc18

-- 
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=Utk5mJZXAJa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 851180] Review Request: mingw-lcms - MinGW Color Management System

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851180

--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
mingw-lcms-1.19-3.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mingw-lcms-1.19-3.fc17

-- 
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=wL1rYGQ1Kga=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 851180] Review Request: mingw-lcms - MinGW Color Management System

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851180

--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
mingw-lcms-1.19-3.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository.

-- 
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=Zu3GAdKMJ1a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 851180] Review Request: mingw-lcms - MinGW Color Management System

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851180

Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA

-- 
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=FPj07674ETa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 851180] Review Request: mingw-lcms - MinGW Color Management System

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851180

--- Comment #7 from greg.helli...@gmail.com ---
Provided you've updated the dependency to mingw*-filesystem to be versioned =
95, this appears ready to go.

-- 
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=OO7sjb8LcPa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 851180] Review Request: mingw-lcms - MinGW Color Management System

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851180

--- Comment #8 from Thomas Sailer t.sai...@alumni.ethz.ch ---
Ah sorry this kinda slipped through the cracks. So this update now requires
mingw*-filesystem = 95.

http://sailer.fedorapeople.org/mingw-lcms-1.19-3.fc18.src.rpm
http://sailer.fedorapeople.org/mingw-lcms.spec

-- 
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=Iiv8I1WIS0a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 851180] Review Request: mingw-lcms - MinGW Color Management System

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851180

--- Comment #4 from Thomas Sailer t.sai...@alumni.ethz.ch ---
Thanks, Greg, for your review!

(In reply to comment #2)
 I'm further curious, if there is a version 2+ out, why are you packaging
 this version, which is running on 3 years old now? Why is mingw-lcms2 not
 sufficient?

Both versions are not fully API compatible. See for example
http://littlecms2.blogspot.ch/search?updated-max=2010-02-15T17:31:00Zmax-results=12start=12by-date=false

This is presumably why we have both versions as native libraries as well.

I was packaging poppler for mingw, and poppler still wants lcms v1.

(In reply to comment #3)

 -rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
 produces. The output should be posted in the review.
 mingw32-lcms-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources
 mingw64-lcms-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources

In my opinion these should be waved. mingw debuginfo packages never include the
source code (see for example
mingw32-libtiff-debuginfo-3.9.5-7.fc17.noarch.rpm); also, the way this package
generates the debuginfo subpackage is exactly as per the fesco approved mingw
packaging guidelines
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:MinGW?rd=Packaging/MinGW#Manpages_and_info_files

 mingw32-lcms-static.noarch: W: no-documentation
 mingw64-lcms-static.noarch: W: no-documentation

Again, these should IMO be waved, as the mingw packaging guidelines requires
documentation which is just a duplicate of the documentation of the native
package not to be packaged.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:MinGW?rd=Packaging/MinGW#Manpages_and_info_files

 Additional notes:
 1) Remove the 'rm -rf ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}' as that is no longer necessary.
done

 2) Remove the %clean section as that is no longer necessary.
done

 3) The %defattr lines can be removed as well, they're now unnecessary.
done

 4) Lines beginning with 'Group:' are superfluous and can be removed
I can do this if you really absolutely require this, but I find it ugly when
rpm -qi reports Group: Unspecified; also, other mingw packages also provide a
group name

 5) The 'BuildRoot:' line should be removed
done

 6) Is there a reason you are relying on mingw*-filesystem = 68 instead of a
 newer version?
removed; I think this is a cutpaste artifact

 7) The two lines that define the globals mingw_build_win{32,64} can be
 safely deleted.
done

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 851180] Review Request: mingw-lcms - MinGW Color Management System

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851180

Kalev Lember kalevlem...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||kalevlem...@gmail.com

--- Comment #5 from Kalev Lember kalevlem...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to comment #4)
  4) Lines beginning with 'Group:' are superfluous and can be removed
 I can do this if you really absolutely require this, but I find it ugly when
 rpm -qi reports Group: Unspecified; also, other mingw packages also
 provide a group name

The packaging guidelines say that it's only needed for EPEL compatibility:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Group_tag

There's been some talk about doing a small revision of the MinGW packaging
guidelines and, among other things, get rid of the group tag in the example
spec file. So far it's just a draft though.

I don't think it's overly important to drop this tag, definitely not a review
blocker.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 851180] Review Request: mingw-lcms - MinGW Color Management System

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851180

--- Comment #6 from greg.helli...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to comment #4)
 Both versions are not fully API compatible. See for example
 http://littlecms2.blogspot.ch/search?updated-max=2010-02-15T17:31:00Zmax-
 results=12start=12by-date=false
 
 This is presumably why we have both versions as native libraries as well.
 
 I was packaging poppler for mingw, and poppler still wants lcms v1.
 

Understandable. I feel the same crunch for some software I've been trying to
build.

  -rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
  produces. The output should be posted in the review.
  mingw32-lcms-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources
  mingw64-lcms-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources
 
 In my opinion these should be waved. mingw debuginfo packages never include
 the source code (see for example
 mingw32-libtiff-debuginfo-3.9.5-7.fc17.noarch.rpm); also, the way this
 package generates the debuginfo subpackage is exactly as per the fesco
 approved mingw packaging guidelines
 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:MinGW?rd=Packaging/
 MinGW#Manpages_and_info_files
 
  mingw32-lcms-static.noarch: W: no-documentation
  mingw64-lcms-static.noarch: W: no-documentation
 
 Again, these should IMO be waved, as the mingw packaging guidelines requires
 documentation which is just a duplicate of the documentation of the native
 package not to be packaged.
 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:MinGW?rd=Packaging/
 MinGW#Manpages_and_info_files
 

Mea culpa. I should have marked that line as fine. Those warnings are
acceptable.

  4) Lines beginning with 'Group:' are superfluous and can be removed
 I can do this if you really absolutely require this, but I find it ugly when
 rpm -qi reports Group: Unspecified; also, other mingw packages also
 provide a group name

It's not a requirement, as Kalev mentioned

  6) Is there a reason you are relying on mingw*-filesystem = 68 instead of a
  newer version?
 removed; I think this is a cutpaste artifact

This needs to be minimally versioned to = 95. You can set it higher if there
are necessary dependencies introduced in later versions, e.g. macros you use in
your spec file.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 851180] Review Request: mingw-lcms - MinGW Color Management System

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851180

--- Comment #3 from greg.helli...@gmail.com ---
I can now do official reviews. Pasted below is my official review for this
package.

My question about why you're packaging this older version when the newer one is
out still stands. Why maintain both packages in Fedora? Is this legacy release
still in support? Either way, onto the review...

Items marked + are good, and those marked - have issues.

-rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces.
The output should be posted in the review.
mingw32-lcms-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources
mingw32-lcms-static.noarch: W: no-documentation
mingw64-lcms-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources
mingw64-lcms-static.noarch: W: no-documentation

+The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
+The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. 
+The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
+The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines .
+The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
+If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its
own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package
must be included in %doc.
+The spec file must be written in American English.
+The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
+The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it is
used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be
specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to
deal with this.
+The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least
one primary architecture. (I tested x86_64 on f17)
+If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
+All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of
those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
+The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
(n/a)Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files
(not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun.
+Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
(n/a) If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
+A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a
directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that
directory.
+A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations)
+Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example.
+Each package must consistently use macros.
+The package must contain code, or permissable content.
+Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of
large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to
size. Large can refer to either size or quantity).
+If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the
application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if
it is not present.
+Static libraries must be in a -static package.
(n/a) Development files must be in a -devel package.
(n/a) In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} =
%{version}-%{release}
+Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in
the spec if they are built.
+Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and
that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install
section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a
.desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation.
+Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the
files or directories that other packages may rely 

[Bug 851180] Review Request: mingw-lcms - MinGW Color Management System

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851180

greg.helli...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||greg.helli...@gmail.com

--- Comment #1 from greg.helli...@gmail.com ---
I'm no RPM creating professional but here's my feedback:
The %clean section is apparently no longer necessary and should be removed from
your spec file.

The line rm -rf ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT} at the beginning of your install is no
longer necessary and should be removed from your spec file.

You install line should use the macro $mingw_make_install
DESTDIR=${RPM_BUILD_ROOT} instead of using %mingw_make install. I'm also not
sure if the INSTALL=install -p parameter is necessary. Is it?

The lines under your %files sections which begin %defattr are no longer
necessary and should be purged from your file.

The BuildRoot: line at the top of your file should be removed. The RPM building
process uses sane roots already and the default values should really be used.

Below is the output of rpmlint on the results. It seems pretty clean to me.


greg@Gateway08:~/Source/fedora-mingw-staging/mingw-lcms $ rpmlint
mingw-lcms-1.19-1.fc19.src.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
greg@Gateway08:~/Source/fedora-mingw-staging/mingw-lcms $ rpmlint noarch/mingw
mingw32-lcms-1.19-1.fc19.noarch.rpm   
mingw64-lcms-1.19-1.fc19.noarch.rpm
mingw32-lcms-debuginfo-1.19-1.fc19.noarch.rpm 
mingw64-lcms-debuginfo-1.19-1.fc19.noarch.rpm
mingw32-lcms-static-1.19-1.fc19.noarch.rpm
mingw64-lcms-static-1.19-1.fc19.noarch.rpm
greg@Gateway08:~/Source/fedora-mingw-staging/mingw-lcms $ rpmlint
noarch/mingw32-lcms-1.19-1.fc19.noarch.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
greg@Gateway08:~/Source/fedora-mingw-staging/mingw-lcms $ rpmlint
noarch/mingw32-lcms-debuginfo-1.19-1.fc19.noarch.rpm 
mingw32-lcms-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.
greg@Gateway08:~/Source/fedora-mingw-staging/mingw-lcms $ rpmlint
noarch/mingw32-lcms-static-1.19-1.fc19.noarch.rpm 
mingw32-lcms-static.noarch: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
greg@Gateway08:~/Source/fedora-mingw-staging/mingw-lcms $ rpmlint
noarch/mingw64-lcms-1.19-1.fc19.noarch.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
greg@Gateway08:~/Source/fedora-mingw-staging/mingw-lcms $ rpmlint
noarch/mingw64-lcms-debuginfo-1.19-1.fc19.noarch.rpm 
mingw64-lcms-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.
greg@Gateway08:~/Source/fedora-mingw-staging/mingw-lcms $ rpmlint
noarch/mingw64-lcms-static-1.19-1.fc19.noarch.rpm 
mingw64-lcms-static.noarch: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 851180] Review Request: mingw-lcms - MinGW Color Management System

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851180

--- Comment #2 from greg.helli...@gmail.com ---
I'm further curious, if there is a version 2+ out, why are you packaging this
version, which is running on 3 years old now? Why is mingw-lcms2 not
sufficient?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 851180] Review Request: mingw-lcms - MinGW Color Management System

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851180

Thomas Sailer t.sai...@alumni.ethz.ch changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||fedora-mingw@lists.fedorapr
   ||oject.org
  Alias||mingw-lcms

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review