https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490054
--- Comment #41 from Fedora Update System ---
scidavis-1.21-6.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on t
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490054
--- Comment #40 from Fedora Update System ---
scidavis-1.21-6.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on t
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490054
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490054
--- Comment #38 from Fedora Update System ---
scidavis-1.21-6.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490054
--- Comment #37 from Fedora Update System ---
scidavis-1.21-6.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490054
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #36 from Fed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490054
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--
You are receiving
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490054
--- Comment #35 from Fedora Update System ---
scidavis-1.21-6.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-1db5fc1618
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list fo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490054
--- Comment #33 from Fedora Update System ---
scidavis-1.21-6.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-149d198190
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list fo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490054
--- Comment #34 from Fedora Update System ---
scidavis-1.21-6.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-bd25beedab
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list fo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490054
--- Comment #32 from Alexander Ploumistos ---
Again, thank you very much Antonio, it was highly educational!
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product an
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490054
Antonio Trande changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #31 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490054
--- Comment #30 from Alexander Ploumistos ---
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #29)
> (In reply to Alexander Ploumistos from comment #28)
> > (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #27)
> > > GPLv2+ and GPLv3+ are compatible licenses
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490054
--- Comment #29 from Antonio Trande ---
(In reply to Alexander Ploumistos from comment #28)
> (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #27)
> > Issues:
> > ===
> > - Package does not use a name that already exists.
> > Note: A package wi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490054
--- Comment #28 from Alexander Ploumistos ---
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #27)
> Issues:
> ===
> - Package does not use a name that already exists.
> Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
> https://ad
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490054
--- Comment #27 from Antonio Trande ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package does not use a name that already exists.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490054
--- Comment #26 from Alexander Ploumistos ---
It's good to have an extra check, so I'll keep them enabled for local builds
and disable them before submitting to koji.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490054
--- Comment #25 from Antonio Trande ---
Choice is your; they're not essential in my opinion.
--
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=1490054
--- Comment #24 from Alexander Ploumistos ---
Created attachment 1326150
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1326150&action=edit
Test results
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #23)
> (In reply to Alexander Ploumistos fr
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490054
--- Comment #23 from Antonio Trande ---
(In reply to Alexander Ploumistos from comment #22)
> > You can also run the tests by running 'unittests' file inside 'test'
> > directory:
> >
> > xvfb-run -a ./unittests
>
> Are these worth the Xorg
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490054
--- Comment #22 from Alexander Ploumistos ---
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #21)
> Before reviewing, please add the patch for fixing the bug #316:
> https://sourceforge.net/p/scidavis/scidavis-bugs/316/
I have backported the patch,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490054
--- Comment #21 from Antonio Trande ---
Before reviewing, please add the patch for fixing the bug #316:
https://sourceforge.net/p/scidavis/scidavis-bugs/316/
You can also run the tests by running 'unittests' file inside 'test' directory:
xvf
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490054
--- Comment #20 from Antonio Trande ---
(In reply to Alexander Ploumistos from comment #19)
>
> (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #17)
> > Set QWT library.
>
> Was this necessary? This was the original conditional, and the second bran
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490054
--- Comment #19 from Alexander Ploumistos ---
Thank you so much Antonio, it would take me months to figure out the python
bits.
I have amended the spec file, added the new patches and I also added a weak
dependency on the subpackage.
(In re
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490054
--- Comment #18 from Antonio Trande ---
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #17)
> Created attachment 1325592 [details]
> config.pri changes
>
> Patch for setting Python paths.
> Set QWT library.
There is an error in this patch:
modify
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490054
--- Comment #17 from Antonio Trande ---
Created attachment 1325592
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1325592&action=edit
config.pri changes
Patch for setting Python paths.
Set QWT library.
--
You are receiving this mail be
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490054
--- Comment #16 from Antonio Trande ---
Created attachment 1325591
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1325591&action=edit
SPEC file changes
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490054
--- Comment #15 from Antonio Trande ---
(In reply to Alexander Ploumistos from comment #13)
>
>
> >
> > > %config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/scidavisrc.py
> > > %exclude %{_sysconfdir}/scidavisrc.pyc
> > > %exclude %{_sysconfdir}/scidavisrc.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490054
--- Comment #14 from Alexander Ploumistos ---
(In reply to Alexander Ploumistos from comment #13)
> Should the subpackage place them in the same locations, or do I need to
> patch the makefile to get them to other paths?
And a bonus question,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490054
--- Comment #13 from Alexander Ploumistos ---
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #12)
> > I have reported the issue upstream:
> >
> > https://sourceforge.net/p/scidavis/scidavis-bugs/317/
>
> Okay.
Robert-André Mauchin provided a patc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490054
--- Comment #12 from Antonio Trande ---
> I have reported the issue upstream:
>
> https://sourceforge.net/p/scidavis/scidavis-bugs/317/
Okay.
> %config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/scidavisrc.py
> %exclude %{_sysconfdir}/scidavisrc.pyc
> %excl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490054
--- Comment #11 from Alexander Ploumistos ---
I have reported the issue upstream:
https://sourceforge.net/p/scidavis/scidavis-bugs/317/
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified abou
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490054
--- Comment #10 from Alexander Ploumistos ---
It failed again:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=21825105
Is it the same error? I still see
src/PythonScripting.cpp:65:10: fatal error: sipAPIscidavis.h: No such file or
dire
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490054
--- Comment #9 from Antonio Trande ---
(In reply to Alexander Ploumistos from comment #8)
> Do you mean like this?
>
>
...
>
> %ifarch armv7hl
> make -j1
> %else
> make %{?_smp_mflags}
> %endif
Almost,
%ifarch %{arm}
make -j1
%else
%make_
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490054
--- Comment #8 from Alexander Ploumistos ---
Do you mean like this?
%build
%if 0%{?__isa_bits} == 64
%qmake_qt4 PRESET=linux_package libsuff="64" CONFIG+=liborigin CONFIG+=python
%else
%qmake_qt4 PRESET=linux_package CONFIG+=liborigin CONFIG
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490054
--- Comment #7 from Antonio Trande ---
> Should I revert the change or should I ExcludeArch armv7hl while I
> investigate
> the issue?
No; the compiler aborts because it is missing the sipAPIscidavis.h file; it's
generated during compilatio
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490054
--- Comment #6 from Alexander Ploumistos ---
Sorry for the late addition, but I just realized that while the build
dependencies where there in the spec file, Python scripting support was
silently dropped in one of the 1.D8-x releases. My guess
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490054
Antonio Trande changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nob...@fed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490054
--- Comment #5 from Alexander Ploumistos ---
Turns out that desktop files in /usr/share/mimelnk were used in KDE3 and they
are obsolete, so I have removed the file from the package.
I've also identified an issue with the manpage - I fixed it
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490054
Alexander Ploumistos changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On|1490053 |
Referenced Bugs:
https://bu
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490054
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Ploumistos ---
Great, thanks. I'll hold off submitting an updated spec file, until I get some
input on the other review request, #1490053, so take your time.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on th
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490054
--- Comment #3 from Iwicki Artur ---
>Should those be plain cp or /usr/bin/cp instead?
I don't think I've ever seen absolute paths for commands while doing package
reviews. Plain cp/mkdir/... should be okay.
>Do you have any insights on those
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490054
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Ploumistos ---
Hello Artur,
Thanks for looking into this.
(In reply to Iwicki Artur from comment #1)
> >%{__mkdir_p}
> >%{__cp} -p
> >...
> "Macro forms of system executables SHOULD NOT be used except when there
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490054
Iwicki Artur changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fed...@svgames.pl
--- Comment #1 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490054
Alexander Ploumistos changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On||1490053
Referenced Bugs:
htt
45 matches
Mail list logo
