[Bug 191017] Review Request: eclipse-subclipse
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: eclipse-subclipse https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191017 [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 191017] Review Request: eclipse-subclipse
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: eclipse-subclipse https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191017 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-25 00:50 EST --- I had to chase dependencies a bit to make sure that %libdir/gjc is properly owned, but I'm pretty sure it is. I wish there was a handy recursive dependency chaser. * source files match upstream. (No checksums possible; see above. Comparison using diff shows the source to be identical.) * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate (as far as I can tell for Java) * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * debuginfo package looks complete (no source, but there are debug symbols). * rpmlint complaints are acceptable. * final provides and requires are sane: eclipse-subclipse-1.1.5-1.fc6.x86_64.rpm org.tigris.subversion.subclipse.ui_1.1.5.jar.so()(64bit) subclipse-core.jar.so()(64bit) svnClientAdapter.jar.so()(64bit) eclipse-subclipse = 1.1.5-1.fc6 = /usr/bin/rebuild-gcj-db eclipse-platform ganymed-ssh2 = 209 java-gcj-compat = 1.0.33 javasvn = 1.1.0 libgcj_bc.so.1()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) subversion-javahl = 1.3.1 eclipse-subclipse-book-1.1.5-1.fc6.x86_64.rpm eclipse-subclipse-book = 1.1.5-1.fc6 = eclipse-subclipse = 1.1.5-1.fc6 * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * package is not relocatable. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * scriptlets present (rebuild-gcj-db) are OK. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. The subversion book is provided as an eclipse plugin in a separate package. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. APPROVED -- 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 191017] Review Request: eclipse-subclipse
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: eclipse-subclipse https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191017 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]| |ne.com) | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-24 00:46 EST --- Things look very good and I will work up a full review tomorrow, but I wanted to comment on one thing: All eclipse related RPMs package dependencies as absolute links, i just did the same. Given the state of many core packages, unless you can point to an Extras-style review then pointing to what an existing package does is not generally a valid argument. Still, in this case I asked around and the issue of the symlink-should-be-relative warning is not clear cut. The main reason for the warning is the fact that absolute symlinks get in the way of proper operation with chroots (since the links will point to different files depending on whether you've chrooted or not). Symlinks can have this problem too if they contain excessive .. components, but hopefully that would be caught in a review. So I tend to believe that it would be better to use relative symlinks, but it's not really essential for a desktop application and in this case the rest of eclipse is bound to have the same issue. I won't block on it. -- 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 191017] Review Request: eclipse-subclipse
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: eclipse-subclipse https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191017 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||ne.com) -- 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 191017] Review Request: eclipse-subclipse
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: eclipse-subclipse https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191017 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-08 20:26 EST --- OK folks, this builds but installation is a bit odd: GC Warning: Couldn't read /proc/stat GC Warning: GC_get_nprocs() returned -1 GC Warning: Couldn't read /proc/stat GC Warning: GC_get_nprocs() returned -1 dirname: missing operand Try `dirname --help' for more information. mkdir: missing operand Try `mkdir --help' for more information. GC Warning: Couldn't read /proc/stat GC Warning: GC_get_nprocs() returned -1 /usr/bin/rebuild-gcj-db: line 17: 4325 Segmentation fault /usr/bin/gcj-dbtool -n $dbLocation 64 GC Warning: Couldn't read /proc/stat GC Warning: GC_get_nprocs() returned -1 xargs: /usr/bin/gcj-dbtool: terminated by signal 11 GC Warning: Couldn't read /proc/stat GC Warning: GC_get_nprocs() returned -1 Any idea what this is about? It's an install in a mock chroot, so perhaps there's some weirdness due to that, but I doubt it's reasonable for things to segfault. rpmlint has some complaints: On the srpm: W: eclipse-subclipse mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs Some lines are indented with tabs, some with spaces, and some of the Requires: and BuildRequires: lines have both. W: eclipse-subclipse patch-not-applied Patch10: eclipse-subclipse-1.1.4-plugin-classpath.patch Not sure what's up here; perhaps a comment as to why this isn't applied would help. On the binary rpm: W: eclipse-subclipse non-standard-group Text Editors/Integrated Development Environments (IDE) I don't think there's any concensus as to what to do with groups at this point; following Eclipse is probably best. W: eclipse-subclipse invalid-license EPL Seems OK as that's what Eclipse uses. W: eclipse-subclipse no-documentation Indeed, there's nothing marked as %doc. Is there anything that should be so marked? There are license files as plain text and HTML changelog files and such, which seems like they qualify. W: eclipse-subclipse dangling-symlink /usr/share/eclipse/plugins/org.tigris.subversion.subclipse.core_1.1.4/lib/javasvn.jar /usr/share/java/javasvn.jar This is OK; it's a symlink to a dependency. W: eclipse-subclipse symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/eclipse/plugins/org.tigris.subversion.subclipse.core_1.1.4/lib/javasvn.jar /usr/share/java/javasvn.jar However, the link should be relative. The symlink warnings are repeated for these files: /usr/share/eclipse/plugins/org.tigris.subversion.subclipse.core_1.1.4/lib/ganymed.jar /usr/share/eclipse/plugins/org.tigris.subversion.subclipse.core_1.1.4/lib/svnjavahl.jar -- 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 191017] Review Request: eclipse-subclipse
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: eclipse-subclipse https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191017 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-28 15:48 EST --- Here's an updated patch: http://people.redhat.com/bkonrath/eclipse/eclipse-subclipse.spec.patch Robert just rebuilt ganymed-ssh2 and javasvn to pick up the changes in rawhide GCJ so it should be ready to go now. Robert, it would be nice if you could apply this patch and if you have time update to the latest version (1.1.4). Thanks. -- 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 191017] Review Request: eclipse-subclipse
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: eclipse-subclipse https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191017 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 16:43 EST --- It would be nice to get this pacakge reviewed with the patch in place. I'm still planning to track down the problem, but it is is a *very* complex GCJ problem. Also, I won't get time until mid August. Robert, are you ok with 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 191017] Review Request: eclipse-subclipse
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: eclipse-subclipse https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191017 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 17:39 EST --- Unfortunately that patch doesn't apply to the spec in http://www.marcanoonline.com/downloads/fedora/package_submissions/subclipse/eclipse-subclipse-1.0.3-2.src.rpm I don't think I botched it when I applied it manually. However, now there are dependency issues; ganymed-ssh2 and javasvn need rebuilds against libgcj.so.7. Is it reasonable to build against FC5 here? -- 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 191017] Review Request: eclipse-subclipse
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: eclipse-subclipse https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191017 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-27 17:48 EST --- Never mind; ganymed-ssh2 isn't build for FC5. So there's pretty much no way this can be reviewed right now. -- 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 191017] Review Request: eclipse-subclipse
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: eclipse-subclipse https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191017 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-07 13:07 EST --- I was planning to install rawhide on a VM this weekend, in order to test with the added eclipse 3.2, to see if nothing breaks, specially my patch to disable the native javahl interface to see if something fixs it in the current incarnation of FC-6. but If you can review it with the patch, better -- 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 191017] Review Request: eclipse-subclipse
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: eclipse-subclipse https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191017 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-04 10:11 EST --- (In reply to comment #19) (In reply to comment #17) BUILD FAILED Buildfile: /usr/share/eclipse/plugins/org.eclipse.pde.build_3.1.2/scripts/build.xml does not exist This is 'cause we updated to 3.2.0 in rawhide. I forget if we kept the versionless pde.build symlink in there -- I think we did -- but I can provide a patch tomorrow. Patch: http://www.overholt.ca/eclipse/eclipse-subclipse.spec.patch -- 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 191017] Review Request: eclipse-subclipse
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: eclipse-subclipse https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191017 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-03 15:40 EST --- Created an attachment (id=131887) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=131887action=view) log from failed 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 191017] Review Request: eclipse-subclipse
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: eclipse-subclipse https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191017 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-03 15:50 EST --- (In reply to comment #17) BUILD FAILED Buildfile: /usr/share/eclipse/plugins/org.eclipse.pde.build_3.1.2/scripts/build.xml does not exist This is 'cause we updated to 3.2.0 in rawhide. I forget if we kept the versionless pde.build symlink in there -- I think we did -- but I can provide a patch tomorrow. Sorry about 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 191017] Review Request: eclipse-subclipse
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: eclipse-subclipse https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191017 Bug 191017 depends on bug 191014, which changed state. Bug 191014 Summary: Review Request: ganymed-ssh2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191014 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 191017] Review Request: eclipse-subclipse
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: eclipse-subclipse https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191017 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-02 23:05 EST --- updated, using the svn export command and a fetch script added as source http://www.marcanoonline.com/downloads/fedora/package_submissions/subclipse/eclipse-subclipse-1.0.3-2.src.rpm http://www.marcanoonline.com/downloads/fedora/package_submissions/subclipse/eclipse-subclipse.spec -- 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 191017] Review Request: eclipse-subclipse
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: eclipse-subclipse https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191017 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn|191016 | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-02 23:08 EST --- Removing bug #191016 from the dependecies 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
[Bug 191017] Review Request: eclipse-subclipse
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: eclipse-subclipse https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191017 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-27 08:22 EST --- I would suggest using svn export rather than svn checkout to create the tarball. svn export will grab a copy of the code without creating the .svn directories. -- 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 191017] Review Request: eclipse-subclipse
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: eclipse-subclipse https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191017 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 16:28 EST --- I had to add --username guest in order to checkout the upstream source. The result, however, was not the same as what you're shipping in the spec. No idea what's going on there. Need to head home now; more when I get there. -- 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 191017] Review Request: eclipse-subclipse
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: eclipse-subclipse https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191017 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 17:58 EST --- It might be nice if you included a quick script which fetches and builds the tarball you use. This is commonly done for packages which must remove something (like mp3 support) from the upstream tarball. -- 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 191017] Review Request: eclipse-subclipse
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: eclipse-subclipse https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191017 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-25 23:23 EST --- Updated: http://www.marcanoonline.com/downloads/fedora/package_submissions/subclipse/eclipse-subclipse.spec http://www.marcanoonline.com/downloads/fedora/package_submissions/subclipse/eclipse-subclipse-1.0.3-1.src.rpm * Sun Jun 25 2006 Robert Marcano [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.0.3-1 - Update to 1.0.3 - Dependency name changed to ganymed-ssh2 -- 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 191017] Review Request: eclipse-subclipse
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: eclipse-subclipse https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191017 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 00:34 EST --- We may have lost some useful comments here. It would be great if people could re-post anything still relevant. Thanks. -- 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 191017] Review Request: eclipse-subclipse
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: eclipse-subclipse https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191017 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-11 19:10 EST --- updated http://www.marcanoonline.com/downloads/fedora/package_submissions/subclipse/eclipse-subclipse.spec http://www.marcanoonline.com/downloads/fedora/package_submissions/subclipse/eclipse-subclipse-1.0.1-6.src.rpm I applied the debuginfo workaround explained on bug #191014 Checked rpmlint warnings: non-standard-group Text Editors/Integrated Development Environments (IDE) I am using the same group that is using eclipse eclipse-subclipse invalid-license CPL, Apache Software License subclipse and svnClientAdapter has those differente licenses -- 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 191017] Review Request: eclipse-subclipse
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: eclipse-subclipse https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191017 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 19:55 EST --- Ok, I just built and installed eclipse-subclipse, javasvn, ganymed and I think they're ready for Extras - everything is working and the rpms look good. Anthony, what's the next step to get these into Extras? -- 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 191017] Review Request: eclipse-subclipse
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: eclipse-subclipse https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191017 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 20:55 EST --- It looks like Robert is already sponsored so all that's required is a package review. Unfortunately I know zilch about Java packaging standards so I've been avoiding these. If nobody steps up and I can work through my queue of current reviews I'll try to take a look. -- 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 191017] Review Request: eclipse-subclipse
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: eclipse-subclipse https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191017 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-04 23:33 EST --- I just filed bug #194026 for the javahl problem. I'll investigate as soon as I get time. -- 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 191017] Review Request: eclipse-subclipse
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: eclipse-subclipse https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191017 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: subclipse |Review Request: eclipse- ||subclipse --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-01 14:43 EST --- Done http://www.marcanoonline.com/downloads/fedora/package_submissions/subclipse/eclipse-subclipse.spec http://www.marcanoonline.com/downloads/fedora/package_submissions/subclipse/eclipse-subclipse-1.0.1-5.src.rpm -- 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
