Done - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823599
On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 at 12:50, Bob Hepple wrote:
>
> Well I eventually woke up, got out of bed and read my email!!
>
> I'll fix up the address and rebuild, no problemo.
>
> Cheers
>
>
> Bob
>
> On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 at 01:06, Petr Pisar wro
Well I eventually woke up, got out of bed and read my email!!
I'll fix up the address and rebuild, no problemo.
Cheers
Bob
On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 at 01:06, Petr Pisar wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 04:51:04PM +0200, Alexander Ploumistos wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 4:40 PM Petr Pisar
On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 04:51:04PM +0200, Alexander Ploumistos wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 4:40 PM Petr Pisar wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 04:27:06PM +0200, Alexander Ploumistos wrote:
> > > The FSF address should be the most straightforward to fix.
> > >
> > Straightforward, but im
On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 4:59 PM Paul Howarth wrote:
>
> I view the rpmlint warning as a hint to try to get upstream to fix the
> license text. In the case of unresponsive upstreams, we just have to
> live with it.
I think we're all on the same page here, I made the suggestion bearing
in mind that
On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 16:51:04 +0200
Alexander Ploumistos wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 4:40 PM Petr Pisar wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 04:27:06PM +0200, Alexander Ploumistos
> > wrote:
> > > The FSF address should be the most straightforward to fix.
> > >
> > Straightforward, but
On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 4:40 PM Petr Pisar wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 04:27:06PM +0200, Alexander Ploumistos wrote:
> > The FSF address should be the most straightforward to fix.
> >
> Straightforward, but impossible for a pacakger. Because it's a part of the
> license declaration, only an
On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 04:27:06PM +0200, Alexander Ploumistos wrote:
> The FSF address should be the most straightforward to fix.
>
Straightforward, but impossible for a pacakger. Because it's a part of the
license declaration, only an author can change it, as the license reads:
[...]keep in
Hello again,
If nobody else steps up to do the review, I'll take care of it later
in the week.
In the meantime, see if you can resolve any of the issues picked up by
rpmlint - there may be some false positives there:
Rpmlint
---
Checking: gjots2-3.1.2-2.fc33.noarch.rpm
gjots2-3.1.2-
Thanks Alexander,
I am (recently) a member of the packagers group - just finding my feet!
I have done the review request here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823599
I also made a request on releng to resurrect the git repo for f-31, 32 & epel8
Cheers
Bob
On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 at
Hello Bob,
On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 3:12 AM Bob Hepple wrote:
> I'd like to unretire the package gjots2 package
> Full disclosure - I'm upstream. The package has been updated to python3
Since gjots2 had been orphaned quite some time ago, it will need to be
reviewed again:
https://fedoraproject.or
I'd like to unretire the package gjots2 package
Full disclosure - I'm upstream. The package has been updated to python3
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Cod
11 matches
Mail list logo
