https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1114146
Davide Cavalca changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
CC|
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
Package Review has canceled Package
Review 's request for Vít Ondruch
's needinfo:
Bug 1114146: Review Request: rubygem-ffi-yajl - Ruby FFI wrapper around YAJL
2.x
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1114146
--- C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1114146
--- Comment #12 from Vít Ondruch ---
(In reply to Julian C. Dunn from comment #11)
> This all seems reasonable. I updated it to rubygem-ffi-yajl 2.3.1 and
> rebuilt it
There is missing changelog entry, but this is just minor nit.
> Are we go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1114146
--- Comment #11 from Julian C. Dunn ---
This all seems reasonable. I updated it to rubygem-ffi-yajl 2.3.1 and rebuilt
it; seems fine:
SRPM:
https://fedorapeople.org/~jdunn/rubygem-ffi-yajl/rubygem-ffi-yajl-2.3.1-1.fc27.src.rpm
SPEC: https://f
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1114146
--- Comment #10 from Vít Ondruch ---
Hm, this does not appear to lead anywhere, so here is my shot:
Spec URL:
https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/vondruch/public_git/rubygem-ffi-yajl.git/plain/rubygem-ffi-yajl.spec?id=a8f49d1a38159d96de202804f20f9c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1114146
--- Comment #9 from Michel Alexandre Salim ---
Yeah, that sounds best. Julian, interested in doing that?
--
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 co
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1114146
--- Comment #8 from Vít Ondruch ---
(In reply to Julian C. Dunn from comment #7)
> I can continue to work on it with your review as long as we are ok on the
> approach of packaging rubygem-libyajl2 separately.
I still think that packaging ind
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1114146
Julian C. Dunn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo? |
--- Comment #7 from Julian C. Dunn
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1114146
Michel Alexandre Salim changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mic...@michel-slm.name
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1114146
Julian C. Dunn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||1133213
Referenced Bugs:
https://b
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1114146
--- Comment #5 from Julian C. Dunn ---
(In reply to Vít Ondruch from comment #4)
> (In reply to Julian C. Dunn from comment #3)
> > So I have already had this discussion with upstream. The vendoring (or not)
> > of the C library is all within
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1114146
Julian C. Dunn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On||1137007
Referenced Bugs:
https://b
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1114146
--- Comment #4 from Vít Ondruch ---
(In reply to Julian C. Dunn from comment #3)
> So I have already had this discussion with upstream. The vendoring (or not)
> of the C library is all within the separate libyajl2 gem, to abstract that
> away.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1114146
--- Comment #3 from Julian C. Dunn ---
(In reply to Vít Ondruch from comment #2)
> * Patches are missing comments
> - Your .spec file contains 4 patches. It would be nice to comment them what
> they are good for, why they are not upstre
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1114146
--- Comment #2 from Vít Ondruch ---
* Patches are missing comments
- Your .spec file contains 4 patches. It would be nice to comment them what
they are good for, why they are not upstream. For example, Patch3 seems to
be fixing compa
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1114146
Vít Ondruch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1114146
Julian C. Dunn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||823352
Referenced Bugs:
https://bu
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1114146
Julian C. Dunn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||823344
Referenced Bugs:
https://bu
18 matches
Mail list logo
