https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1444562
Parag AN(पराग) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review+ |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1444562
Parag AN(पराग) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1442275
Parag AN(पराग) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1444562
--- Comment #2 from Parag AN(पराग) ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
1) Package installs properly.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448778
--- Comment #6 from Link Dupont ---
- Removed ctest from %check
- Split out translations into langpacks
- Updated the License tag and rebuilt the SRPM
Spec URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448660
Bug 1448660 depends on bug 1448658, which changed state.
Bug 1448658 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-text-extensions - List of text file
extensions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448658
What|Removed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448658
Jared Smith changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448859
Bug 1448859 depends on bug 1448660, which changed state.
Bug 1448660 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-is-text-path - Check if a filepath
is a text file
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448660
What|Removed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448660
Jared Smith changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448658
--- Comment #2 from Dennis Gilmore ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/nodejs-text-extensions
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448876
Jared Smith changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448859
Bug 1448859 depends on bug 1364232, which changed state.
Bug 1364232 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-meow - CLI app helper
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1364232
What|Removed |Added
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448876
Bug 1448876 depends on bug 1364232, which changed state.
Bug 1364232 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-meow - CLI app helper
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1364232
What|Removed |Added
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1364232
Jared Smith changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1444560
Jared Smith changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1444561
--- Comment #2 from Jared Smith ---
(In reply to Parag AN(पराग) from comment #1)
> Can you please package npm(babel-runtime)? I will be happy to review it.
Sure -- it's at
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1446005
--- Comment #3 from W. Michael Petullo ---
Strange. On my Fedora 25 computer gnustep-config's gnustep-make package is
required by gnustep-base-devel which is in turn a BuildRequires. The package
also builds for me in mock for
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1422683
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1422683
--- Comment #10 from Jared Smith ---
I've gone ahead and added a Requires for systemd-udev, just to be explicit.
I've added a BuildRequires on perl-generators as well.
As for the systemd unit file -- yes, it's
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1451456
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System ---
compat-tidy-0.99.0-37.20091203.el7 libopkele-2.0.4-9.el7
mod_auth_openid-0.8-2.el7 psi-plus-0.16-0.22.20141205git440.el7
tidy-5.4.0-1.el7 has been submitted as an update
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1441828
mgans...@alice.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Review Request: |Review Request:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1441828
--- Comment #41 from mgans...@alice.de ---
Hi Vit,
many thanks for your review !
polish changes are welcome.
--
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=1422683
--- Comment #9 from Tom Hughes ---
Do we need a systemd-udev require? or do we just assume that is present?
Per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Perl I believe we need BRs on
perl-generators and possibly on perl?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1422683
--- Comment #8 from Tom Hughes ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- If (and only if) the source package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1422683
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t...@compton.nu
--
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1422683
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
--
You are receiving
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1422683
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1422683
--- Comment #7 from Jared Smith ---
My most sincere apologies for the latency on this issue... I've been wholly
consumed with work (12+ hours per day) and some pressing personal/family issues
that have consumed the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1430364
Stephen Gallagher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1430364
--- Comment #6 from Stephen Gallagher ---
(In reply to Matthew Smith from comment #5)
> Apologies, here is my updated (unofficial) review.
>
> Package Review
> ==
>
> Legend:
> [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] =
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438842
--- Comment #7 from Sayan Chowdhury ---
(In reply to Randy Barlow from comment #6)
> One more thing needs to be fixed for approval:
>
> The macro used for /var/lib is still incorrect. It is currently
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438842
--- Comment #6 from Randy Barlow ---
One more thing needs to be fixed for approval:
The macro used for /var/lib is still incorrect. It is currently
%{_localstatedir}/lib, when it should be %{_sharedstatedir}.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1443076
--- Comment #17 from Severin Gehwolf ---
(In reply to jiri vanek from comment #12)
> (In reply to Severin Gehwolf from comment #11)
> > (In reply to jiri vanek from comment #3)
> > > * unlike java-1.8.0-openjdk bundled
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1443076
--- Comment #16 from Mikolaj Izdebski ---
(In reply to jiri vanek from comment #13)
> - No %config files under /usr.
> Note: %config(noreplace)
>
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1443076
--- Comment #15 from jiri vanek ---
> accessibility.properties seems to come from the spec. Would accessibility
> still work if placed in conf/accessibility.properties?
> -
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1443076
--- Comment #14 from jiri vanek ---
> - Shenandoah GC not yet supported. You mentioned that it'll be included once
> review completes.
> Consider this a TODO list item :)
> $ java -XX:+UseShenandoahGC -version
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1443076
--- Comment #13 from jiri vanek ---
- No %config files under /usr.
Note: %config(noreplace)
/usr/lib/jvm/java-9-openjdk-9.0.0.163-2.fc26.x86_64/lib/security/default.policy%config(noreplace)
...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1443076
--- Comment #12 from jiri vanek ---
(In reply to Severin Gehwolf from comment #11)
> (In reply to jiri vanek from comment #3)
> > * unlike java-1.8.0-openjdk bundled NSS is used
>
> Can we actually do this? I don't think
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359412
--- Comment #17 from Andrew J. Schorr ---
I updated the URL in the spec file to say https instead of http. I uploaded a
new tarball, spec file, and source rpm.
Thanks,
Andy
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1451456
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System ---
psi-plus-0.16-0.22.20141205git440.el7 mod_auth_openid-0.8-2.el7
libopkele-2.0.4-9.el7 compat-tidy-0.99.0-35.20091203.el7 tidy-5.4.0-1.el7 has
been submitted as an update
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1451456
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1421605
Honza Horak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(hho...@redhat.com |
|)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1441828
Vít Ondruch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1453084
Rex Dieter changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359412
--- Comment #16 from David Kaspar [Dee'Kej] ---
(In reply to Kamil Dudka from comment #15)
> (In reply to David Kaspar [Dee'Kej] from comment #13)
> > Okay, so for some reason the SHA256 hashes still don't match for the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1453084
--- Comment #3 from Ryan Lerch ---
Thanks for the review!
here is the new SPEC and SRPM
https://ryanlerch.fedorapeople.org/fedora-workstation-backgrounds-1.1-1.fc26.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359412
--- Comment #15 from Kamil Dudka ---
(In reply to David Kaspar [Dee'Kej] from comment #13)
> Okay, so for some reason the SHA256 hashes still don't match for the package
> I have downloaded and the package fedore-review has
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359412
--- Comment #14 from Andrew J. Schorr ---
I guess this is probably due to changes in the spec file over time. I just
uploaded a new version of:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1441728
--- Comment #11 from c72...@yahoo.de ---
Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/c72578/rpmbuild/master/SPECS/cld2.spec
SRPM URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448661
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448661
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System ---
brotli-0.6.0-4.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-7299929ef6
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1451138
--- Comment #5 from Satish Balay ---
(In reply to Tom Stellard from comment #4)
> (In reply to Satish Balay from comment #3)
> clang-4.0 will depend
> on libomp-4.0, so when you install clang-4.0 you will get the correct
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1451456
--- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/compat-tidy
--
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=1453084
--- Comment #2 from Rex Dieter ---
naming: ok
1. sources: NOT ok
$ spectool -g *.spec
Getting
https://releases.pagure.org/fedora-design/fedora-workstation-backgrounds-1.0.tar.gz
...
curl: (22) The requested URL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1450633
--- Comment #29 from Mukundan Ragavan ---
Having said that, I will fix this in git.
--
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1450633
--- Comment #28 from Mukundan Ragavan ---
(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #27)
> > %posttrans
> > gtk-update-icon-cache %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor &>/dev/null || :
> > desktop-file-validate
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1451456
Remi Collet changed:
What|Removed |Added
QA Contact|fed...@famillecollet.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1453084
Rex Dieter changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1451456
Rex Dieter changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448778
--- Comment #5 from Antonio Trande ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
- License analysis from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359412
--- Comment #13 from David Kaspar [Dee'Kej] ---
Okay, so for some reason the SHA256 hashes still don't match for the package I
have downloaded and the package fedore-review has downloaded.
However, doing manual check on
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673
Mario Torre changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||neug...@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359412
--- Comment #12 from David Kaspar [Dee'Kej] ---
Sorry for the delay, I was struggling to run fedora-review tool because of BZ
#1350930. Anyway, I made it to work, so here are the rest of necessary
formalities...
rpmlint
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1421605
Pavel Zhukov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1450633
--- Comment #27 from Michael Schwendt ---
> %posttrans
> gtk-update-icon-cache %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor &>/dev/null || :
> desktop-file-validate %{_datadir}/applications/keepassxc.desktop &> /dev/null
> || :
That
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1430364
--- Comment #5 from Matthew Smith ---
Apologies, here is my updated (unofficial) review.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
-
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1400427
--- Comment #2 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) ---
Igor - just a ping to remind you that this package has been approved and you
can go ahead and commit to SCM :)
Cheers!
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1368911
Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1451138
--- Comment #4 from Tom Stellard ---
(In reply to Satish Balay from comment #3)
> Thanks!
>
> One more issue:
>
> I have:
>
> clang-3.9.1-2.fc26.x86_64
>
> However I'm able to install libomp-4.0.0 with it. [so the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432955
Tom Stellard changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|POST|CLOSED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1452649
--- Comment #9 from Luke Hinds ---
Hi Richard,
I have some updates:
- %license COPYRIGHT
done
- The exabgp package depends on /usr/bin/perl
This is from two perl scripts which are examples of what can be used for
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1440704
--- Comment #12 from c72...@yahoo.de ---
Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/c72578/rpmbuild/master/SPECS/cpprest.spec
SRPM URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1421605
Honza Horak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(hho...@redhat.com |
|)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1451134
--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System ---
lightdm-autologin-greeter-1.0-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7
testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this
bug report.
See
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378160
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|CLOSED |ON_QA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448661
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1451134
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System ---
lightdm-autologin-greeter-1.0-2.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=1451134
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
78 matches
Mail list logo