https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782560
Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782560
Orion Poplawski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(moses@puppetlabs.
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782560
--- Comment #38 from Vít Ondruch ---
Hi,
Could you please update it to follow the latest Ruby packaging guidelines? You
can try to use this [1] migration script. However, for such conditionalized
.spec file, it does not work very
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782560
--- Comment #37 from Moses Mendoza ---
> I'd love to see comment referencing the upstream commit with the license
> change, as long as new version carrying this change is not released.
Also, I went ahead and updated for upstream
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782560
--- Comment #36 from Moses Mendoza ---
Hi Vit,
I've updated per your comments, here:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/rubygemshadow/2.2.0/rubygem-ruby-shadow-2.2.0-1.fc18.src.rpm
https://s3.amazonaws.com/rubygemshadow/2.2.0/rubygem-ruby-
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782560
Vít Ondruch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo? |
--- Comment #35 from Vít
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782560
Michael Stahnke changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?
--- Comment
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782560
--- Comment #33 from Moses Mendoza ---
Just an update on this, the upstream maintainer has updated the license to
include Public Domain see (https://github.com/apalmblad/ruby-shadow) and this
should be in the next release to rubyg
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782560
Moses Mendoza changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mo...@puppetlabs.com
--- Comment #32 fro
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782560
--- Comment #31 from Todd Zullinger 2012-04-28 11:08:52 EDT ---
Hi Vit,
(In reply to comment #30)
> * The EPEL section is wrong
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782560
--- Comment #30 from Vít Ondruch 2012-04-20 04:06:49 EDT
---
Hi Todd,
(In reply to comment #29)
> I spent time over the past f
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782560
--- Comment #29 from Todd Zullinger 2012-04-19 10:16:32 EDT ---
I spent time over the past few days adding support for gem_extdi
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782560
Mo Morsi changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782560
--- Comment #27 from Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda 2012-04-10
01:55:02 EDT ---
Hi Todd,
to answer your questions:
- gem_extdir is pa
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782560
--- Comment #26 from Todd Zullinger 2012-04-06 16:29:22 EDT ---
Actually, the license tag simply never got adjusted after the ge
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782560
--- Comment #25 from Todd Zullinger 2012-04-06 16:18:48 EDT ---
Bohuslav,
Thanks. I'll update to 2.1.3 now and will mail upstr
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782560
--- Comment #24 from Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda 2012-04-06
05:06:43 EDT ---
Ah sorry, I take this back. Will have to properly loo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782560
--- Comment #23 from Vít Ondruch 2012-04-06 04:57:07 EDT
---
(In reply to comment #22)
> - Please remove zero-length files, as
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782560
--- Comment #22 from Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda 2012-04-06
04:10:42 EDT ---
Ok, here are my comments:
- Are you sure about the li
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782560
--- Comment #21 from Todd Zullinger 2012-04-04 13:06:45 EDT ---
Apologies for the long delay.
I've updated the spec file to hop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782560
Bobby Powers changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782560
--- Comment #19 from Vít Ondruch 2012-03-06 10:48:37 EST
---
(In reply to comment #18)
> Hi Vit,
>
> Sure, we can move the mac
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782560
--- Comment #18 from Todd Zullinger 2012-03-06 10:35:28 EST ---
Hi Vit,
Sure, we can move the macros into the %if %{?rhel} sect
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782560
Vít Ondruch changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782560
--- Comment #16 from Michael Stahnke 2012-02-20 21:11:52
EST ---
Todd, I'm happy to continue to have you get this through revie
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782560
--- Comment #15 from Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda 2012-02-20
01:52:04 EST ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> I updated the spec file t
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782560
--- Comment #14 from Todd Zullinger 2012-02-17 17:40:58 EST ---
I updated the spec file to do prep/build/install more in line wi
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782560
--- Comment #13 from Todd Zullinger 2012-02-16 15:45:24 EST ---
Something else I just noticed is that the build is being done in
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782560
--- Comment #12 from Todd Zullinger 2012-02-16 11:13:06 EST ---
Hey guys,
I made a few changes to the spec file to reflect many
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782560
--- Comment #11 from Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda 2012-02-16
02:12:04 EST ---
Ok, agreed.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782560
--- Comment #10 from Todd Zullinger 2012-02-16 02:03:17 EST ---
I just can't see how manufacturing a version that never existed
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782560
--- Comment #9 from Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda 2012-02-16
01:38:31 EST ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #4)
>
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782560
--- Comment #8 from Todd Zullinger 2012-02-15 21:31:01 EST ---
We should be sure that the questions on obsoletes and provides ar
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782560
--- Comment #7 from Michael Stahnke 2012-02-15 21:06:38
EST ---
I wasn't sure if I was going to put this package into EPEL 5, b
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782560
--- Comment #6 from Todd Zullinger 2012-02-15 09:36:35 EST ---
A very minor thing, but if this package is intended to work on EL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782560
--- Comment #5 from Todd Zullinger 2012-02-15 09:29:56 EST ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Well, the guidelines for obsoleting ar
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782560
--- Comment #4 from Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda 2012-02-15
02:14:22 EST ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Wouldn't Obsoletes: ruby(sh
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782560
Todd Zullinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782560
--- Comment #2 from Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda 2012-02-07
07:07:57 EST ---
- You don't need the macro definitions, as they are al
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782560
Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
40 matches
Mail list logo
