https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1450440
--- Comment #3 from Paul Howarth ---
(In reply to Gerd Pokorra from comment #2)
> Why you check the licensedir?
>
> I think
>
> %if 0%{?_licensedir:1}
> %license LICENSE
> %else
> %doc LICENSE
> %endif
>
> should be
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448778
--- Comment #10 from Link Dupont ---
Fixed up those. I ran fedora-review myself, so I hope I cleared up everything.
Spec URL:
https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/linkdupont/public_git/cockatrice.git/plain/cockatrice.spec
SRPM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1456203
--- Comment #14 from RĂ©mi Verschelde ---
(In reply to Gwyn Ciesla from comment #9)
> Package request has been approved:
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/jumpnbump
Thanks Gwyn, and thanks Neal for
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1456203
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System ---
jumpnbump-1.60-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-7f7dd3851b
--
You are receiving this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1456203
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System ---
jumpnbump-1.60-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-2206fc38a0
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1456203
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System ---
jumpnbump-1.60-1.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-bf8d29889c
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1456203
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System ---
jumpnbump-1.60-1.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-e6d3ae98ce
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1456203
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1426193
--- Comment #31 from David Moreau Simard ---
@Dusty, unless mistaken everything is in Fedora except ARA itself by now. Need
a fedora packager to review the proposed spec:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1426193
--- Comment #30 from Dusty Mabe ---
(In reply to David Moreau Simard from comment #29)
> Just a small update, as much as I'd like to be able to wrap this up, I'm not
> going to be able to look into this until at least
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1456203
--- Comment #9 from Gwyn Ciesla ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/jumpnbump
--
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=1440384
--- Comment #10 from Gwyn Ciesla ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/latte-dock
--
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=1444518
Paul Whalen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pwha...@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1439342
Paul Whalen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1427341
--- Comment #29 from Charalampos Stratakis ---
The submitter hasn't answered in over a month. According to the policy for
stalled package reviews [0] I'm declaring this review as stalled, and if no
response is given
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1426193
--- Comment #29 from David Moreau Simard ---
Just a small update, as much as I'd like to be able to wrap this up, I'm not
going to be able to look into this until at least the second half of june.
To recapitulate, everything
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448778
--- Comment #9 from Antonio Trande ---
- This software is looking for some private libraries which are not
packed/installed:
Error: nothing provides libcockatrice_common.so()(64bit) needed by
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1450440
Gerd Pokorra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1450440
--- Comment #2 from Gerd Pokorra ---
Why you check the licensedir?
I think
%if 0%{?_licensedir:1}
%license LICENSE
%else
%doc LICENSE
%endif
should be replaced to
%license LICENSE
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673
--- Comment #56 from jiri vanek ---
As this is going to final meter, I had pushed necessary changes to rawhide:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1450440
Gerd Pokorra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673
--- Comment #55 from jiri vanek ---
hmm, the devel as noarch is interesting, but those realy are scripts, and jars
are plain java. So well ,strange, but ok :) /jsut for record
--
You are receiving this mail because:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673
--- Comment #54 from jiri vanek ---
(In reply to Jonny Heggheim from comment #42)
> A quick update:
>
> Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/openjfx.spec
> SRPM URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673
jiri vanek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=758472
Stefan Eilemann changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|eilem...@gmail.com |
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1440704
--- Comment #13 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=755510
--- Comment #99 from nicolas.vievi...@univ-valenciennes.fr ---
Hello James,
Thanks for your interest in this review request and your proposal to give the
formal review and to sponsor me.
I've noted that I have to issue a couple of informal
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1133826
Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389202
Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673
--- Comment #53 from jiri vanek ---
There is /usr/libs/.build-id directory in main package. It should get renamed
to .openjfx-build-id (or similarly) or move to... I don't know where. Is it
useful at all?
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673
--- Comment #52 from jiri vanek ---
(In reply to Rex Dieter from comment #51)
> Re: comment 50
>
> using modified sources is only required if needed for legal reasons.
> Otherwise, doing so makes it harder/obfuscated if
31 matches
Mail list logo