https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060804
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|flamp-2.2.02-2.fc21 |flamp-2.2.02-2.el7
--- Comment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060804
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|flamp-2.2.02-2.fc22 |flamp-2.2.02-2.fc21
--- Commen
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060804
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060804
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #41 from Fed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060804
--- Comment #40 from Fedora Update System ---
flamp-2.2.02-2.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/flamp-2.2.02-2.fc22
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for t
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060804
--- Comment #39 from Fedora Update System ---
flamp-2.2.02-2.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/flamp-2.2.02-2.fc21
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for t
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060804
--- Comment #38 from Fedora Update System ---
flamp-2.2.02-2.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/flamp-2.2.02-2.el7
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060804
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--
You are receiving
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060804
--- Comment #37 from Jon Ciesla ---
Git done (by process-git-requests).
--
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
_
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060804
Jon Ciesla changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
--
You are receiving this m
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060804
Richard Shaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #36 from Richa
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060804
Antonio Trande changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #35 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060804
--- Comment #34 from Richard Shaw ---
SPEC: https://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/flamp.spec
SRPM: https://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/flamp-2.2.02-2.fc21.src.rpm
* Wed May 27 2015 Richard Shaw - 2.2.02-2
- Use %%license macro where appropriat
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060804
--- Comment #33 from Antonio Trande ---
(In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #32)
> Are all the blockers resolved at this point?
Please, post definitive SPEC/SRPM files.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for t
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060804
--- Comment #32 from Richard Shaw ---
Are all the blockers resolved at this point?
--
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
__
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060804
--- Comment #31 from Antonio Trande ---
(In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #30)
> (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #24)
> > - License file COPYING is marked as %doc instead of %license
> > - Upstream URLs are not reachable yet for
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060804
--- Comment #30 from Richard Shaw ---
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #24)
> - License file COPYING is marked as %doc instead of %license
> - Upstream URLs are not reachable yet for me at this time.
> - There is no code GPLv2+ excludi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060804
--- Comment #29 from Antonio Trande ---
(In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #28)
> (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #26)
> > No file is licensed with a GPLv2+. See attached licensecheck.txt .
>
> I think you are mistaken, from your
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060804
--- Comment #28 from Richard Shaw ---
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #26)
> No file is licensed with a GPLv2+. See attached licensecheck.txt .
I think you are mistaken, from your attachment:
GPL (v2 or later)
-
flam
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060804
--- Comment #27 from Antonio Trande ---
Created attachment 1023234
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1023234&action=edit
licensecheck.txt
Files without license should be modified by upstream to know their license.
--
You a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060804
--- Comment #26 from Antonio Trande ---
(In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #25)
>
>
> > - Upstream URLs are not reachable yet for me at this time.
>
> I'm still not sure what's going on here...
> $ curl -LO http://www.w1hkj.com/download
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060804
--- Comment #25 from Richard Shaw ---
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #24)
> - License file COPYING is marked as %doc instead of %license
Fixed. I'll post new spec and SRPM when the below are addressed.
> - Upstream URLs are not re
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060804
--- Comment #24 from Antonio Trande ---
- License file COPYING is marked as %doc instead of %license
- Upstream URLs are not reachable yet for me at this time.
- There is no code GPLv2+ excluding 'flamp-2.2.02/src/include/gettext.h'
License
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060804
--- Comment #23 from Richard Shaw ---
I didn't get a chance to respond but it must have been a transient problem, the
link worked when I tried it yesterday and rpmlint is not complaining today.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060804
--- Comment #22 from Antonio Trande ---
(In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #21)
> SPEC: https://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/flamp.spec
> SRPM: https://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/flamp-2.2.02-1.fc21.src.rpm
>
> * Tue May 5 2015 Richard S
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060804
--- Comment #21 from Richard Shaw ---
SPEC: https://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/flamp.spec
SRPM: https://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/flamp-2.2.02-1.fc21.src.rpm
* Tue May 5 2015 Richard Shaw - 2.2.02-1
- Update to latest upstream release.
-
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060804
--- Comment #20 from Antonio Trande ---
(In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #19)
> SPEC: https://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/flamp.spec
> SRPM: https://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/flamp-2.1.02-2.fc20.src.rpm
RPMs are not built yet (at leas
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060804
--- Comment #19 from Richard Shaw ---
SPEC: https://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/flamp.spec
SRPM: https://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/flamp-2.1.02-2.fc20.src.rpm
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060804
--- Comment #18 from Antonio Trande ---
Please, post links of the SPEC/SRPM (2.1.02-2) updated in order to complete
this review.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about change
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060804
--- Comment #17 from Richard Shaw ---
The only difference between the first SRPM and the second is my (unsuccessful)
attempt to unbundle lzmasdk...
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always no
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060804
--- Comment #16 from Antonio Trande ---
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #15)
> (In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #14)
> > Here's the link for my attempt. Hopefully you can provide some insight.
> >
> > https://hobbes1069.fedorap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060804
--- Comment #15 from Antonio Trande ---
(In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #14)
> Here's the link for my attempt. Hopefully you can provide some insight.
>
> https://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/flamp-2.1.02-2.fc20.src.rpm
Package buildin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060804
--- Comment #14 from Richard Shaw ---
Here's the link for my attempt. Hopefully you can provide some insight.
https://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/flamp-2.1.02-2.fc20.src.rpm
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060804
--- Comment #13 from Antonio Trande ---
Please, post final SPRM.
--
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060804
--- Comment #12 from Richard Shaw ---
I tried substituting lzma-sdk in it's place but it seems to be missing some
symbols so it looks to be modified so we're in a similar boat as xmlrpc...
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on t
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060804
--- Comment #11 from Antonio Trande ---
> [?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
Please, check src/lzma directory for bundled files.
When package is ready, post new links.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
Y
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060804
--- Comment #10 from Richard Shaw ---
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #9)
> (In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #8)
> > Ok, I have updated the license tag to:
> >
> > License:GPLv3+ and GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+
> >
> > I admit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060804
--- Comment #9 from Antonio Trande ---
(In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #8)
> Ok, I have updated the license tag to:
>
> License:GPLv3+ and GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+
>
> I admit licenses are not my strong suit so does this look correc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060804
--- Comment #8 from Richard Shaw ---
Ok, I have updated the license tag to:
License:GPLv3+ and GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+
I admit licenses are not my strong suit so does this look correct?
In looking at the configure script it doesn't look
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060804
--- Comment #7 from Michael Schwendt ---
Well, whose idea was it to add that? ;) There is no comment above that section
in the spec file. So, take a look at the configure script and figure out what
it does if that option is set. If it only a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060804
--- Comment #6 from Richard Shaw ---
(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #5)
> > - Use %{__isa_bits} macro to expand to either 32 or 64 according to the
> > architecture of the package
> >
> > %ifarch x86_64
> > --enable-optimizati
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060804
--- Comment #5 from Michael Schwendt ---
> - Use %{__isa_bits} macro to expand to either 32 or 64 according to the
> architecture of the package
>
> %ifarch x86_64
> --enable-optimizations=sse2
> %else
> --enable-optimizations=none
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060804
--- Comment #4 from Antonio Trande ---
- These files are licensed with a LGPLv2+
flamp-2.1.02/src/widgets/Fl_BlockMap.cxx
flamp-2.1.02/src/widgets/Fl_Native_File_Chooser.cxx
flamp-2.1.02/src/widgets/Fl_Text_Buffer_mod.cxx
flamp-2.1.02/src/widg
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060804
Antonio Trande changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nob...@fed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060804
--- Comment #3 from Richard Shaw ---
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #2)
> sse flags shouldn't be mentioned in any spec.
I don't see any guideline problem, so is this a technical issue? I could change
it to native, but then it woul
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060804
Christopher Meng changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cicku...@gmail.com
--- Comment #2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060804
Richard Shaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
--
You are receiving this mail becau
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060804
Richard Shaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review?
--
You are receiving t
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060804
--- Comment #1 from Richard Shaw ---
This package built on koji:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6485752
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to
49 matches
Mail list logo
