https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1374781
--- Comment #3 from Simone Caronni ---
Well, fedora-review is completely broken at the moment
(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350930), will do the review
manually.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1374781
Simone Caronni changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1374781
Simone Caronni changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1374781
Simone Caronni changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1375765
--- Comment #3 from Eric Smith ---
Updated to latest upstream snapshot, which merges my patch for deterministic
regression testing.
Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/yosys/yosys.spec
SRPM URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1373486
Petr Viktorin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(pviktori@redhat.c |
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369232
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1360587
gil cattaneo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) |
Referenced
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977116
--- Comment #58 from Fedora Update System ---
pgmodeler-0.8.2-4.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=1360587
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369248
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369244
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376899
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378445
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|CLOSED |ON_QA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1374781
Marcel Haerry changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mh+fed...@scrit.ch
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1357064
Raphael Groner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Alias|lumina-desktop |
--- Comment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1346245
Ben Rosser changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379096
Mukundan Ragavan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On||1379095
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379093
gil cattaneo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||punto...@libero.it
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379094
--- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo ---
Issues:
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "BSD (3 clause)",
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379090
gil cattaneo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||punto...@libero.it
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379090
--- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo ---
Issues:
[?]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "BSD (3 clause)",
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379093
gil cattaneo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332052
Tuomo Soini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||t...@foobar.fi
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1357064
Raphael Groner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|POST|MODIFIED
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379090
Bug ID: 1379090
Summary: Review Request: python-qtconsole - Jupyter Qt console
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
Severity: medium
Priority: medium
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379096
Bug ID: 1379096
Summary: Review Request: python-nbconvert - Converting Jupyter
Notebooks
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
Severity:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290337
Christoph Junghans changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379095
Bug ID: 1379095
Summary: Review Request: python-entrypoints - Discover and load
entry points from installed packages
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1373641
--- Comment #1 from Guido Aulisi ---
Spec URL: http://www.sentolavita.com/pkgs/setBfree.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.sentolavita.com/pkgs/setBfree-0.8.2-2.fc24.src.rpm
Updated spec and srpm to correct some lint warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290337
gil cattaneo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) |
Referenced
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290337
--- Comment #5 from gil cattaneo ---
Thanks for the review!
create new SCM request:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/7937
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366845
Mukundan Ragavan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379090
--- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo ---
have time for this https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366845 ?
thanks in advance
--
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=1379090
gil cattaneo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1357064
--- Comment #29 from Neal Gompa ---
> As I plan to build packages for EPEL7, I keep the scriptlets.
Then conditionalize it so that it doesn't run on F24 and newer.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379091
Bug ID: 1379091
Summary: Review Request: python-QtPy - Provides an abstraction
layer on top of the various Qt bindings (PyQt5, PyQt4
and PySide) and additional custom QWidgets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379094
Bug ID: 1379094
Summary: Review Request: python-flit - Simplified packaging of
Python modules
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379093
gil cattaneo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379094
gil cattaneo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379093
Bug ID: 1379093
Summary: Review Request: python-pickleshare - Tiny
'shelve'-like database with concurrency support
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379092
Bug ID: 1379092
Summary: Review Request: python-QtAwesome - FontAwesome icons
in PyQt and PySide applications
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379095
Mukundan Ragavan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||1379096
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379095
Mukundan Ragavan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On||1379094
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379094
Mukundan Ragavan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||1379095
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379093
gil cattaneo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379094
--- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo ---
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #2)
> Issues:
>
> [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
> Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327989
Mukundan Ragavan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379090
--- Comment #8 from gil cattaneo ---
(In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #7)
> (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #6)
> > (In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #4)
> > > (In reply to gil cattaneo from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366845
--- Comment #8 from gil cattaneo ---
(In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #7)
> taking up for review.
For referencies see https://fedora-java.github.io/howto/latest/#maven
NOTE: %dir %{_javadir}/%{name} is no more
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379090
--- Comment #11 from Mukundan Ragavan ---
Actually, I don't think the scriptlets are even needed for F25+ which is what I
am planning to request for anyway.
Please note here -
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379094
--- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo ---
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #3)
> (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #2)
> > Issues:
> >
> > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
> >
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366845
--- Comment #12 from gil cattaneo ---
Thanks for the review!
create new SCM request/s:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/7942
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/7943
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378445
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System ---
kf5-kirigami-1.0.2-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376899
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System ---
pcaudiolib-1.0-3.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379090
--- Comment #6 from gil cattaneo ---
(In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #4)
> (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #3)
> > Issues:
> >
> > [?]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379090
gil cattaneo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366845
Mukundan Ragavan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366845
--- Comment #9 from Mukundan Ragavan ---
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #8)
> (In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #7)
> > taking up for review.
> For referencies see
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379090
--- Comment #13 from Mukundan Ragavan ---
Thank you!
--
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=1327981
Mukundan Ragavan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378445
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System ---
kf5-kirigami-1.0.2-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379093
--- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo ---
ops forgotten is available a new release: 0.7.4
--
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=1379090
--- Comment #5 from Mukundan Ragavan ---
Spec URL:
https://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/python-packages/python-qtconsole/round2/python-qtconsole.spec
SRPM URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379090
--- Comment #4 from Mukundan Ragavan ---
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #3)
> Issues:
>
> [?]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
> Note: Checking patched sources after %prep
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379090
--- Comment #9 from gil cattaneo ---
and still not available
Requires(post): desktop-file-utils
Requires(postun): desktop-file-utils
for each pythonN-%{pypi_name} sub packages
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379090
--- Comment #10 from gil cattaneo ---
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #8)
> (In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #7)
> > (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #6)
> > > (In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366845
--- Comment #11 from gil cattaneo ---
(In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #10)
>
> There are several files with no license headers. Please communicate this to
> upstream devels.
>
> Looking at the files, nothing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379093
--- Comment #3 from Mukundan Ragavan ---
Thank you! I will fix these before importing.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379093
--- Comment #5 from Mukundan Ragavan ---
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #4)
> ops forgotten is available a new release: 0.7.4
I noticed that too when I requested new package. I will build that when I
import the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379090
--- Comment #7 from Mukundan Ragavan ---
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #6)
> (In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #4)
> > (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #3)
> > > Issues:
> > >
> > > [?]: License
71 matches
Mail list logo