https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1638824
Mattia Verga changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|POST|CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1638824
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
--
You are receiving
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1638824
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1638824
--- Comment #24 from Gwyn Ciesla ---
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/kdsoap
--
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=1638824
--- Comment #23 from Casper Meijn ---
Thank you all for reviewing and sponsoring me!
(In reply to Luis Segundo from comment #22)
> This was already approved and sponsored, any idea why you have not created
> the repository yet?
I just now
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1638824
Luis Segundo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||l...@blackfile.net
--- Comment #22
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1638824
Luis Bazan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bazanlui...@gmail.com
--- Comment #21
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1638824
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1638824
--- Comment #19 from Casper Meijn ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #18)
> - Own theses dirs:
>
> /usr/share/mkspecs/features, /usr/share/mkspecs
>
>Use:
>
> %dir %{datadir}/mkspecs
> %dir %{datadir}/mkspecs/features
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1638824
--- Comment #18 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Own theses dirs:
/usr/share/mkspecs/features, /usr/share/mkspecs
Use:
%dir %{datadir}/mkspecs
%dir %{datadir}/mkspecs/features
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1638824
--- Comment #17 from Casper Meijn ---
Thanks for your comments
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #14)
> - Split tte doc into a noarch -doc subpackage
>
I created a separate doc package for the documentation
> - Own theses
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1638824
--- Comment #16 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Wrong tab sorry.
--
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=1638824
--- Comment #15 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
If you have trouble rebuilding your SRPM:
rpmbuild --define "python3_pkgversion 34" --define "_sourcedir $PWD" --define
"_srcrpmdir $PWD" --target epel-7-x86_64 -bs boost-python3.spec
--
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1638824
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1638824
--- Comment #13 from Casper Meijn ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #12)
> - Not needed:
>
> rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
I removed this line
>
> - Not needed anymore:
>
> %post -p /sbin/ldconfig
>
> %postun -p
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1638824
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1638824
--- Comment #11 from Casper Meijn ---
(In reply to Luis Segundo from comment #10)
> I understand, if the license does not apply, it can be removed.
I removed LICENSE.txt again
> please check this last issue
>
> Issues:
> ===
> - If (and
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1638824
--- Comment #10 from Luis Segundo ---
(In reply to Casper Meijn from comment #9)
> The "LICENSE.txt" is not the license under which we want to use the
> software. Is it then still necessary to include it?
I understand, if the license does
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1638824
--- Comment #9 from Casper Meijn ---
Thanks Luis,
The "LICENSE.txt" is not the license under which we want to use the software.
Is it then still necessary to include it?
I replaced %{_datarootdir} by %{_datadir}.
Spec URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1638824
--- Comment #8 from Luis Segundo ---
Nice Casper,
It is necessary to add this license "LICENSE.txt"
and replace %{_datarootdir} to %{_datadir} on
%{_datarootdir}/mkspecs/features/kdsoap.prf
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1638824
--- Comment #7 from Casper Meijn ---
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #6)
> %doc = %_pkgdocdir = %{_docdir}/%{name} != %{_datarootdir}/doc/KDSoap
I understand now; the doc files were installed to the wrong path. I now delete
the doc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1638824
--- Comment #6 from Antonio Trande ---
(In reply to Casper Meijn from comment #5)
> Am I correct that the %doc and %license marcos are for installing files from
> the source to the correct buildroot directory?
>
> I now remove the license
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1638824
--- Comment #5 from Casper Meijn ---
Am I correct that the %doc and %license marcos are for installing files from
the source to the correct buildroot directory?
I now remove the license files and use the %license macro. I added a comment
for
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1638824
--- Comment #4 from Antonio Trande ---
(In reply to Luis Segundo from comment #1)
> you need to make some changes
>
> Issues:
> ===
> - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
> are listed in the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1638824
--- Comment #3 from Luis Segundo ---
Hi Casper,
For documentation use the macro: %doc
and this one "%{_datarootdir}" can be removed
for License replace
%license %{_datarootdir}/doc/KDSoap/LICENSE.txt
%license
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1638824
--- Comment #2 from Casper Meijn ---
Thanks for the quick reaction. I cleaned up the BuildRequires and Requires and
marked the license files. However I am not sure whether I used the %license
macro correctly nor how to validate it.
Spec URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1638824
Luis Segundo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||l...@blackfile.net
--- Comment #1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1638824
Casper Meijn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
Referenced
28 matches
Mail list logo
