[Bug 193957] Review Request: nant
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: nant https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193957 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |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 193957] Review Request: nant
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: nant https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193957 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |NEW Keywords||Reopened 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 193957] Review Request: nant
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: nant https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193957 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-19 15:30 EST --- Thanks. I'll check onto the cause and patch it up. -- 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 193957] Review Request: nant
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: nant https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193957 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-19 11:52 EST --- How can I get check-buildroot to run within mock? -- 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 193957] Review Request: nant
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: nant https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193957 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|NOTABUG |NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-19 11:41 EST --- (In reply to comment #16) > A small problem with nant-0.85-5.src.rpm rebuilt on fc5: /usr/bin/nant tries > to call /var/tmp/nant-0.85-5fc5-root-user/usr/lib/NAnt/bin/NAnt.exe. That's not a small problem, it's an arbitrary command execution vulnerability. Please install fedora-rpmdevtools and add check-buildroot and friends to your ~/.rpmmacros (eg. using fedora-buildrpmtree), it catches errors like this: [...] + /usr/lib/rpm/check-buildroot /var/tmp/nant-0.85-5-buildroot-scop/usr/bin/nant:exec /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/../../bin/mono /var/tmp/nant-0.85-5-buildroot-scop/usr/lib64/NAnt/bin/NAnt.exe "$@" Found '/var/tmp/nant-0.85-5-buildroot-scop' in installed files; aborting error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.42428 (%install) The same problem is in the package released in devel. Filed as bug 199432. -- 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 193957] Review Request: nant
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: nant
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193957
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |NOTABUG
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-19 08:58 EST ---
A small problem with nant-0.85-5.src.rpm rebuilt on fc5: /usr/bin/nant tries to
call /var/tmp/nant-0.85-5fc5-root-user/usr/lib/NAnt/bin/NAnt.exe.
This small patch fixes it:
--- nant.spec.orig2006-07-09 02:06:41.0 +0200
+++ nant.spec 2006-07-19 14:57:55.0 +0200
@@ -46,7 +46,7 @@
%install
rm -rf %{buildroot}
%makeinstall
-sed -i -e "s#%buildroot##" %buildroot%_bindir/%name
+sed -i -e "s#%{buildroot}##" %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/%{name}
find examples -name \*.dll -o -name \*.exe|xargs rm -f
rm -rf %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/NAnt/doc
--
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 193957] Review Request: nant
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: nant https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193957 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-09 17:50 EST --- 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 193957] Review Request: nant
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: nant https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193957 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-09 17:41 EST --- You can also optionally fix the end of line on every other file in the package. 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 193957] Review Request: nant
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: nant https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193957 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-08 20:09 EST --- Spec URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/nant.spec SRPM URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/nant-0.85-5.src.rpm All of the fixes as required in #12 -- 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 193957] Review Request: nant
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: nant
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193957
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-08 19:10 EST ---
Almost there.
nant-0.85-4.src.rpm
On nant-docs:
* Missing dependancy on scrollkeeper-update for %post (package scrollkeeper)
* Missing dependancy on scrollkeeper-update for %postun (package scrollkeeper)
rpmlint:
W: nant non-standard-group Development/Other
Suggest Development/Tools
W: nant strange-permission nant-0.85-rc4-src.tar.gz 0666
W: nant strange-permission nant.spec 0666
Ignore.
E: nant non-utf8-spec-file nant.spec
file says nant.spec: ISO-8859 Java program text. Save as utf8.
W: nant rpm-buildroot-usage %build export MONO_PATH=%{buildroot}/lib
E: nant hardcoded-library-path in %{buildroot}/lib
Needed, as far as I can tell. Ignore.
E: nant no-binary
Ignore.
E: nant only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
Assemblies and such. Ignore.
W: nant wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/nant-0.85/license.html
W: nant wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/nant-0.85/COPYING.txt
W: nant wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/nant-0.85/README.txt
W: nant wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/nant-0.85/releasenotes.html
And everything from nant-docs has wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding. Optionally
fix these.
- package meets naming guidelines
- package meets packaging guidelines
- license (GPL) OK, text in %doc, matches source
- spec file legible, in am. english
- source matches upstream
- package compiles on devel (x86_64)
- no missing BR
- no unnecessary BR
- no locales
- not relocatable
- owns all directories that it creates
- no duplicate files
- permissions ok
- %clean ok
- macro use consistent
- code, not content
- -docs package
- nothing in %doc affects runtime
- no need for .desktop file
--
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 193957] Review Request: nant
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: nant https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193957 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-08 18:55 EST --- Spec URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/nant.spec SRPM URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/nant-0.85-4.src.rpm Tested and looking good. I've built boo against it and that seems happy. -- 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 193957] Review Request: nant
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: nant https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193957 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-08 17:58 EST --- Mono packaging guidelines say to put in arch dependent, however, basically %_libdir. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Mono In this case it seems to be portable but since we have to allow for native compilation it's going into arch dependent. My attempt at forcing %_libdir: http://fedorared.org/~john/review/nant-0.85-4.src.rpm Note the hack to substiute in %_lib. It does make this self-building thing install to /usr/lib64 on x86_64, however. -- 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 193957] Review Request: nant
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: nant https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193957 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||189092 nThis|| -- 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 193957] Review Request: nant
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: nant https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193957 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|177580 | nThis|| -- 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 193957] Review Request: nant
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: nant https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193957 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||177580 nThis|| -- 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 193957] Review Request: nant
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: nant https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193957 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||177580 nThis|| -- 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 193957] Review Request: nant
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: nant https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193957 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 03:18 EST --- I was extras IRC last night and the view was that it's mess. Some mono stuff has to be platform specific, while libs should be noarch. The problem with that though is that there are lots of exceptions to the rules. An example is f-spot. It's a mix of C and C#. For my packages, gtksourceview-sharp would be noarch, but those built on it might be. Someone did mention they should be treated the same as jar files, but again, some applications (such as azerus) are defined as being architecture specific. If you can bare the horror of looking at a SuSE spec file, you'll see that they basically just noarch everything which will, by default, place everything in /usr/lib rather than lib64. I personally am unhappy with having binaries as noarch as to me, noarch should be scripts (perl etc), pictures, audio files and text - material which doesn't care what the architecture is. I await spot on this one. -- 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 193957] Review Request: nant
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: nant
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193957
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-09 19:09 EST ---
I have to look at the libdir issue some more this weekend first.
Also tibbs has asked spot to look into what kind of formal guidelines would make
sense for mono applications as well. So far there's been discussion about
redefining %{_libdir}, whether %{_datadir} vs /usr/lib is something worth
waiting for, and the security issues WRT .dlls distributed by a project that is
not its upstream. If you have any guideline ideas or whatnot, it would be good
to email fedora-extras or jump into fedora-extras IRC to discuss them. I'm
pretty sure that with some more formal guidelines there will be more people
willing to review mono packages.
The libdir thing is so hacky that a lot of people just don't know what would be
a good idea with mono and what would not. I'm willing to look at it. But
understanding the underlying issues and trying to figure out whether redefining
libdir is really needed and what other methods might be applied to fixing things
has to come before I can do a competent job of reviewing.
It would really suck if a whole slew of mono apps were approved now and we had
to chase them all down and fix them later. And it would really suck if some of
the other mono packagers weren't as conscientious as you about fixing things
once issues were brought up and we had packages needing fixes sitting around the
repository for years.
--
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 193957] Review Request: nant
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: nant https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193957 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-09 17:22 EST --- Given #8, can this package be formally reviewed? -- 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 193957] Review Request: nant
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: nant
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193957
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 04:08 EST ---
I'm not sure on the advisability of moving all of the mono stuff to %{_datadir},
but I will carry on watching upstream and see what happens, though I can't see
there being much enthusiasm for such a change.
--
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 193957] Review Request: nant
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: nant
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193957
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-07 12:56 EST ---
Talked with caillon via IRC who says that all of /usr/lib/mono should move to
/usr/share/mono at some point. So %{_datadir} nant would appear to be doing the
right thing and will be followd by the rest of mono at some point.
--
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 193957] Review Request: nant
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: nant https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193957 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-07 11:09 EST --- After sleeping on this, I'm not certain datadir is definitely wrong. Java puts jar files into /usr/share. I believe PEs are portable to different architectures but I'm not certain. I'm going to ask on fedora-devel or fedora-maintainers to see whether Core packagers have reached a concensus on where mono apps should go. -- 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 193957] Review Request: nant
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: nant https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193957 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-07 10:37 EST --- I'm going to refer this upstream - the package is correct in where it's putting things - they just happen to be in the wrong place! -- 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 193957] Review Request: nant
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: nant https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193957 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-07 06:12 EST --- http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/nant-0.85-3.src.rpm D'oh! -- 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 193957] Review Request: nant
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: nant https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193957 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-07 06:11 EST --- Spec URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/nant.spec SRPM URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/nant-0.85-2.src.rpm docs subpackage created debuginfo package removed (empty) As to the /usr/share, that is where nant installs itself to by default with the make install with a symlink to %bindir. I'll need to think about how best to do 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 193957] Review Request: nant
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: nant https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193957 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-06 23:57 EST --- * You should split out a -docs subpackage. * The binaries are currently being installed in /usr/share which is plainly wrong. -- 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 193957] Review Request: nant
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: nant https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193957 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-04 09:38 EST --- Spec URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/nant.spec SRPM URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/nant-0.85-2.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 193957] Review Request: nant
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: nant https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193957 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-03 19:29 EST --- Spec URL: http://www.smmp.salford.ac.uk/packages/nant.spec SRPM URL: http://www.smmp.salford.ac.uk/packages/nant-0.85-2.src.rpm Fixed a couple of problems in the spec file -- 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
