https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691
Andy Mender changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Status|ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691
Andy Mender changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #54 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691
--- Comment #53 from David Nichols ---
updated release links:
new links:
- https://docs.qore.org/srpms/qore.spec
- https://docs.qore.org/srpms/qore-0.9.6-3.fc32.src.rpm
Koji build:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691
--- Comment #52 from Andy Mender ---
Sounds good! Thanks for the update :)
Regarding sponsorship, please have a look at this doc:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691
David Nichols changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(da...@qore.org) |
--- Comment #51 from David Nichols
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691
Andy Mender changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo- |needinfo?(da...@qore.org)
--- Comment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691
--- Comment #49 from Andy Mender ---
> oops I think I added that back because it is an arch-specific package, and I
> assumed that I should only remove it for the noarch packages. Should I
> remove it then here too?
Good question. The
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691
--- Comment #48 from David Nichols ---
(In reply to Andy Mender from comment #47)
> > %package devel
> > Requires: libqore%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
> > Recommends: %{name} = %{version}
>
> Hmm in the spec file I see the following:
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691
--- Comment #47 from Andy Mender ---
> $ grep -e ^%package -e ^Requires: -e ^Recommends: -e ^BuildArch: qore.spec
> Requires: libqore%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
> Requires: %{name}-stdlib%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
Looks good.
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691
--- Comment #46 from David Nichols ---
(In reply to Andy Mender from comment #45)
> > qore-devel:
> > The Qore library can be used without qore and the qore-stdlib packages to
> > allow for developing programs supporting embedded logic in
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691
--- Comment #45 from Andy Mender ---
> I would like to understand what you mean with the Requires lines - currently
> I have:
> qore -> requires libqore, qore-stdlib
> libqore -> requires nothing
> qore-doc () -> requires nothing
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691
--- Comment #44 from David Nichols ---
(In reply to Andy Mender from comment #43)
> Super good job on the updates! :)
thank you very much!
> > Requires: %{name}-libqore%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
> > Requires: %{name}-stdlib%{?_isa} =
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691
--- Comment #43 from Andy Mender ---
Super good job on the updates! :)
> Requires: %{name}-libqore%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
> Requires: %{name}-stdlib%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
To make the main package fully "meta", there
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691
--- Comment #42 from David Nichols ---
(In reply to Andy Mender from comment #41)
> > %global module_dir %{_libdir}/qore-modules
> > %global user_module_dir %{_datarootdir}/qore-modules/
>
> Not a requirement, but %{_datadir} resolves to the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691
--- Comment #41 from Andy Mender ---
> %global module_dir %{_libdir}/qore-modules
> %global user_module_dir %{_datarootdir}/qore-modules/
Not a requirement, but %{_datadir} resolves to the same directory -
"/usr/share".
> Summary:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691
--- Comment #40 from David Nichols ---
(In reply to Andy Mender from comment #39)
> I see this has been hanging around for a while so I'll take it. David, if
> you still need a sponsor, be sure to block the FE-NEEDSPONSOR bug report.
>
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691
--- Comment #39 from Andy Mender ---
I see this has been hanging around for a while so I'll take it. David, if you
still need a sponsor, be sure to block the FE-NEEDSPONSOR bug report.
I'll wait a bit for a new SPEC and SRPM so take your
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691
Andy Mender changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andymenderu...@gmail.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691
David Nichols changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(da...@qore.org) |needinfo-
--- Comment #38 from David
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
David Nichols has denied Package Review
's request for David Nichols
's needinfo:
Bug 691: Review Request: qore - multithreaded programming/scripting
language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691
--- Comment #38
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691
--- Comment #36 from David Nichols ---
the scm repo has moved to github; the build has been updated accordingly:
Spec URL: http://qore.org/srpms/qore.spec
SRPM URL: http://qore.org/srpms/qore-0.8.11.1-7.fc22.src.rpm
koji
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691
Adam Williamson (Red Hat) awill...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691
--- Comment #34 from David Nichols da...@qore.org ---
(In reply to Adam Williamson (Red Hat) from comment #33)
I'm not a sponsor, but the package looks good to me, I see no errors.
thanks Adam, I appreciate you taking a look at it.
If I
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691
--- Comment #35 from Adam Williamson (Red Hat) awill...@redhat.com ---
that would be a good way to try and find one, yeah - maybe look at their
packages / reviews and see if you can find one who's interested in this general
area of work. You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691
--- Comment #32 from David Nichols da...@qore.org ---
another informal review:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121601#c1
--
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=691
--- Comment #31 from David Nichols da...@qore.org ---
Upon further manual review of the RPMS, a packaging bug in the file specs in
the qore-doc package was found which is fixed in the new release:
Spec URL: http://qore.org/srpms/qore.spec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691
--- Comment #29 from David Nichols da...@qore.org ---
updated URLS:
new URLs:
Spec URL: http://qore.org/srpms/qore.spec
SRPM URL: http://qore.org/srpms/qore-0.8.11.1-4.fc20.src.rpm
changes:
- added a %%check section using the new make check
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691
--- Comment #30 from David Nichols da...@qore.org ---
I found some bugs in external module building related to changes made for
Fedora packaging in this package, therefore I have updated URLS:
new URLs:
Spec URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691
--- Comment #28 from David Nichols da...@qore.org ---
another informal package review:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1117022#c1
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691
--- Comment #27 from David Nichols da...@qore.org ---
I did my first informal review here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116548#c2
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691
--- Comment #26 from David Nichols da...@qore.org ---
Could someone please let me know if the latest package attempt is OK?
I've taken care of all issues to the best of my knowledge with Release 3...
--
You are receiving this mail because:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691
--- Comment #24 from David Nichols da...@qore.org ---
updated URLS:
new URLs:
Spec URL: http://qore.org/srpms/qore.spec
SRPM URL: http://qore.org/srpms/qore-0.8.11.1-3.fc20.src.rpm
changes:
- added license files and license READMEs to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691
--- Comment #25 from David Nichols da...@qore.org ---
koji builds of qore-0.8.11.1-3:
f20:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7082844
rawhide:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7083028
--
You are receiving
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691
--- Comment #19 from David Nichols da...@qore.org ---
(In reply to David Nichols from comment #18)
OK I have it like this now:
Provides: qore-module(abi) = 0.19
Provides: qore-module(abi) = 0.18
Provides: libqore5 = %{version}
Obsoletes:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691
--- Comment #20 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net ---
libqore.x86_64: E: useless-provides qore-module(abi)
rpmlint is mistaken in this case. A bug report had been filed years ago in bug
460872, but it has been closed due to a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691
--- Comment #21 from David Nichols da...@qore.org ---
(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #20)
libqore.x86_64: E: useless-provides qore-module(abi)
rpmlint is mistaken in this case. A bug report had been filed years ago in
bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691
--- Comment #22 from Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me ---
Are these obsoletes lines needed? These are not available in the official repo
but only in the qore 3rd party yum repo.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691
--- Comment #23 from David Nichols da...@qore.org ---
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #22)
Are these obsoletes lines needed? These are not available in the official
repo but only in the qore 3rd party yum repo.
There is only
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691
--- Comment #15 from David Nichols da...@qore.org ---
(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #14)
obsolete-not-provided
First of all, while you can put anything in an Obsoletes tag, only package
names (with/without a version-release
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691
--- Comment #16 from David Nichols da...@qore.org ---
(In reply to David Nichols from comment #15)
(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #14)
obsolete-not-provided
First of all, while you can put anything in an Obsoletes tag,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691
--- Comment #17 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net ---
This did not work [...]
So-called self-Obsoletes do work, because the same package still Provides
what it Obsoletes.
Self-Obsoletes sometimes are used to replace multiple
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691
--- Comment #18 from David Nichols da...@qore.org ---
(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #17)
This did not work [...]
So-called self-Obsoletes do work, because the same package still Provides
what it Obsoletes.
Self-Obsoletes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691
--- Comment #11 from David Nichols da...@qore.org ---
(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #7)
Odd. And rather limited. You could not do Requires: qore-module-api =
0.10, for example. Why not
Provides: qore-module(api) = 0.5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691
--- Comment #12 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net ---
Versioned Provides do not imply that you must use '='. It would be perfectly
acceptable to only use '=' in dependencies.
$ rpm -q --provides audacious-libs|grep api
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691
--- Comment #13 from David Nichols da...@qore.org ---
(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #12)
Versioned Provides do not imply that you must use '='. It would be
perfectly acceptable to only use '=' in dependencies.
$ rpm -q
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691
--- Comment #14 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net ---
obsolete-not-provided
First of all, while you can put anything in an Obsoletes tag, only package
names (with/without a version-release range) will actually result in the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691
--- Comment #4 from David Nichols da...@qore.org ---
(In reply to Jason Taylor from comment #1)
Hi David,
I would take a look at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL?rd=Packaging/SourceURL
for your Source URL information.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691
--- Comment #5 from David Nichols da...@qore.org ---
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #2)
Please drop those futile opensuse macros in Fedora packages.
ok - done
I wanted to have one spec file for all rpm-based distros, but since
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691
--- Comment #6 from David Nichols da...@qore.org ---
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #3)
More detailed initial review thought(Note you need a sponsor, I can't help,
I will address this at the end):
1. The packaging style looks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691
--- Comment #7 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net ---
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:FrequentlyMadeMistakes
| Increase the Release tag every time you upload a new package to avoid
| confusion. The reviewer and other
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691
--- Comment #8 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net ---
%package doc
Plus, documentation very often is not arch-specific, so a -doc subpackage could
be BuildArch: noarch. In that case, an arch-specific dependency on a library
base
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691
--- Comment #9 from David Nichols da...@qore.org ---
(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #7)
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:FrequentlyMadeMistakes
| Increase the Release tag every time you upload a new package to avoid
|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691
--- Comment #10 from David Nichols da...@qore.org ---
(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #8)
%package doc
Plus, documentation very often is not arch-specific, so a -doc subpackage
could be BuildArch: noarch. In that case, an
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691
David Nichols da...@qore.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691
Jason Taylor jason.tay...@secure-24.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691
Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||i...@cicku.me
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691
--- Comment #3 from Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me ---
More detailed initial review thought(Note you need a sponsor, I can't help, I
will address this at the end):
1. The packaging style looks like a decade ago.
%define qore_ver 0.8.11
You
58 matches
Mail list logo