https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1374899
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System ---
quassel-irssi-0-2.20161120gitcbd9bd7.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24
stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this
bug report.
--
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382367
Tomas Mraz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401967
--- Comment #2 from Kevin Kofler ---
> I don't know if Hershey license can be accepted on Fedora.
Yes, it is accepted, as per:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Good_Licenses_4
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1397089
greg.helli...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||greg.helli...@gmail.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1395244
Randy Barlow changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378341
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System ---
fedpkg-copr-0.10-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378341
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System ---
fedpkg-copr-0.10-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378341
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System ---
fedpkg-copr-0.10-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369708
--- Comment #58 from Gang Wei ---
(In reply to Yunying Sun from comment #55)
> (In reply to Josh Boyer from comment #54)
> > (In reply to Dan Horák from comment #53)
> > > Isn't this request a duplicate of
> > >
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378341
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359402
--- Comment #28 from Tim Fenn ---
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #27)
> Created attachment 1221971 [details]
> review log
>
> Package Review
> ==
>
> Legend:
> [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369708
--- Comment #57 from Jerry Snitselaar ---
Looking to the future and RHEL, I noticed when taking a look autoconf-archive
and libcmocka are only available in EPEL. The autoconf-archive was just using
the pthread macro, so
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1399365
--- Comment #2 from Jerry James ---
Indeed, the package home moved and there is a new version. New URLs:
Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-xmod/gap-pkg-xmod.spec
SRPM URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401961
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401961
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System ---
madplay-0.15.2b-11.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-35125c4963
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401961
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System ---
madplay-0.15.2b-11.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-56346b6f1e
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1289717
--- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System ---
viennacl-1.7.1-3.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-8fe5ca8d90
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1289717
--- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System ---
viennacl-1.7.1-3.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-b231f2b6d4
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1402164
--- Comment #1 from Devin Henderson ---
I forgot to link to the original bug report where the current maintainer stated
that he doesn't have time to upgrade the package -->
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1338050
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1402164
Bug ID: 1402164
Summary: Review Request: pydf - Fully colorized df clone
written in python
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
Severity:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401961
--- Comment #2 from Jon Ciesla ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/madplay
--
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=1400261
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System ---
qrmumps-2.0-4.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-b67f3530e0
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1400261
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System ---
qrmumps-2.0-4.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-6ec29baa85
--
You are receiving this mail because:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1400261
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System ---
qrmumps-2.0-4.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-2036a8c913
--
You are receiving this mail because:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1400261
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394789
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394789
--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System ---
neovim-0.1.7-4.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-b8f61d4abb
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401414
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401414
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System ---
python-neovim-0.1.12-2.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-125fc45785
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389971
--- Comment #46 from Fedora Update System ---
elemental-0.87.5-2.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-6ca5b05dc6
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389971
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389971
--- Comment #45 from Fedora Update System ---
elemental-0.87.5-2.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-563959753e
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379765
MartinKG changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401961
Wolfgang Ulbrich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401961
Wolfgang Ulbrich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1400236
--- Comment #5 from Dhanesh B. Sabane ---
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #4)
> Not really. The guidelines say that macros should be used for directory
> names [1] (and it's "should", not "must",
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1400261
--- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/qrmumps
--
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=1401414
--- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-neovim
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394789
--- Comment #22 from Jon Ciesla ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/neovim
--
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=1400236
--- Comment #4 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ---
(In reply to Dhanesh B. Sabane from comment #3)
> (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #2)
> > Why?
> So that consistency is maintained. As far as I
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393947
--- Comment #2 from Fl@sh ---
success build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16774595
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1371158
Ralf Corsepius changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382152
Jared Wallace changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382152
Jared Wallace changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1400236
--- Comment #3 from Dhanesh B. Sabane ---
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #2)
> Why?
So that consistency is maintained. As far as I know, one of the requirements
of a good package is that it
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1400236
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1400236
Dhanesh B. Sabane changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302744
--- Comment #5 from Haïkel Guémar ---
Used port is PORT + 1, so 8001 according code.
8001 is used on my local machine by weechat but it'd better to randomize port
(and check if it's unused before running tests)
--
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302744
--- Comment #4 from Haïkel Guémar ---
Tests fails in mock as it tries to bind a socket already in use, if you silence
them, build's ok.
Failing test is test_norange
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1397089
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393947
Fl@sh changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393947
--- Comment #1 from greg.helli...@gmail.com ---
New SRPM:
https://fedorapeople.org/~greghellings/cinch/cinch-0.2.1-1.fc25.src.rpm
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359914
--- Comment #20 from Jeremy Newton ---
(In reply to MartinKG from comment #19)
> (In reply to Jeremy Newton from comment #18)
> > I'll take a look into this night or tomorrow.
>
> You are welcome.
>
> This information
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394789
--- Comment #21 from Filip Szymański ---
I was thinking of changing Recommends python{2,3}-neovim to Suggests.
This way we get fewer dependencies (Python packages or only suggested not
installed). They are not necessary to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401596
Adam Miller changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401596
Adam Miller changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||admil...@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1365794
--- Comment #3 from Charalampos Stratakis ---
Pull request has been merged and version 1.2 was released which includes the
MIT license file, so the review can proceed.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394789
Jakub Hrozek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401961
Wolfgang Ulbrich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401961
Wolfgang Ulbrich changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359914
--- Comment #19 from MartinKG ---
(In reply to Jeremy Newton from comment #18)
> I'll take a look into this night or tomorrow.
You are welcome.
This information reached me on 2 December from the developer Cédric
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401013
--- Comment #7 from Andrea Baita ---
Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/danoliv/git-octopus-spec/master/git-octopus.spec
SRPM URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394789
--- Comment #19 from Filip Szymański ---
"If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires
against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Those packages will include everything that is
required to build a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1371158
--- Comment #3 from Ingvar Hagelund ---
Thanks Petr
Updated spec: https://ingvar.fedorapeople.org/ebtree/ebtree.spec
Updated srpm:
https://ingvar.fedorapeople.org/ebtree/ebtree-6.0.8-2.fc25.src.rpm
> TODO: Execute tests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401013
--- Comment #6 from Andrea Baita ---
Spec updated with doc generation:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/danoliv/git-octopus-spec/master/git-octopus.spec
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394789
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Hrozek ---
Fedora-review says:
Issues:
===
- All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
Note:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359914
Jeremy Newton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401414
Jakub Hrozek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401414
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Hrozek ---
I think the package looks good, so I'm giving review+
For posterity, here is fedora-review output:
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401967
John Florian changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=505154
Antonio Trande changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On||1401967
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401967
Antonio Trande changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||182235
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401967
Bug ID: 1401967
Summary: Review Request: qcad - Powerful 2D CAD system
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
Severity: medium
Priority: medium
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1374510
--- Comment #7 from Guido Aulisi ---
Upstream has merged the incorrect FSF address patch
(https://github.com/tomszilagyi/ir.lv2/pull/1), so the next release will
correctly report the FSF address.
--
You are receiving
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401961
Bug ID: 1401961
Summary: Review Request: madplay - MPEG audio decoder and
player
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
Severity: medium
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401450
Fabio Alessandro Locati changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401450
Guido Aulisi changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=967782
--- Comment #10 from Joe Cooper ---
I've made a stab at packaging this, starting from the package found in the Lux
repo (which was itself based on an old Dag Wieers package), since the packages
referenced in this ticket are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369708
--- Comment #56 from Dan Horák ---
(In reply to Yunying Sun from comment #55)
> (In reply to Josh Boyer from comment #54)
> > (In reply to Dan Horák from comment #53)
> > > Isn't this request a duplicate of
> > >
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369708
Yunying Sun changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(fedora@besser82.i |
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1397140
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System ---
mrrescue-1.02e-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394252
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System ---
perl-Net-CalDAVTalk-0.09-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1395354
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System ---
python-colorlog-2.9.0-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394262
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System ---
perl-Net-CardDAVTalk-0.03-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382655
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System ---
pology-0.12-3.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393129
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System ---
python-aexpect-1.2.0-3.20161110gitaca459d.fc24, python-avocado-43.0-6.fc24 has
been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist,
please make
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394952
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System ---
python-aexpect-1.2.0-3.20161110gitaca459d.fc24, python-avocado-43.0-6.fc24 has
been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist,
please make
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343977
Vít Ondruch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(vondruch@redhat.c |
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1395244
Aurelien Bompard changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(aurelien@bompard. |
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401414
--- Comment #10 from Andreas Schneider ---
Spec URL: https://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/python-neovim/python-neovim.spec
SRPM URL:
https://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/python-neovim/python-neovim-0.1.12-2.fc25.src.rpm
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401414
--- Comment #9 from Andreas Schneider ---
Co-maintaining is much appreciated.
--
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
91 matches
Mail list logo