[Bug 1336552] Review Request: exodusii - Library to store and retrieve transient finite element data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1336552 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System --- exodusii-6.02-5.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1336552] Review Request: exodusii - Library to store and retrieve transient finite element data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1336552 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2016-10-08 22:47:33 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System --- exodusii-6.02-5.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1336552] Review Request: exodusii - Library to store and retrieve transient finite element data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1336552 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- exodusii-6.02-5.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://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-ef86cfeae3 -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1336552] Review Request: exodusii - Library to store and retrieve transient finite element data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1336552 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- exodusii-6.02-5.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://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-3ec60759ec -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1336552] Review Request: exodusii - Library to store and retrieve transient finite element data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1336552 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- exodusii-6.02-4.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://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-ef86cfeae3 -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1336552] Review Request: exodusii - Library to store and retrieve transient finite element data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1336552 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- exodusii-6.02-4.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://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-3ec60759ec -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1336552] Review Request: exodusii - Library to store and retrieve transient finite element data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1336552 --- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/exodusii -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1336552] Review Request: exodusii - Library to store and retrieve transient finite element data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1336552
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #11 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski ---
One more small issue:
The devel package should depend on the main package with %{_isa}, since it's
archful. Only noarch packages can skip %{_isa}.
Requires: %{name}%{_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
You can fix this upon import.
Other than that, it looks like all issues are fixed. Good work! Package
approved.
--
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1336552] Review Request: exodusii - Library to store and retrieve transient finite element data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1336552 --- Comment #10 from Christoph Junghans --- I found another overlinking issue with fedora-review. Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/junghans/fedora-review/master/exodusii/exodusii.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/junghans/fedora-review/raw/master/exodusii/exodusii-6.02-4.fc24.src.rpm -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1336552] Review Request: exodusii - Library to store and retrieve transient finite element data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1336552
--- Comment #9 from Christoph Junghans ---
(In reply to Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski from comment #8)
> Please post both spec and srpm URL each time you make a revision.
See below
>
> Issues found in current revision:
>
> %install
> [...]
> cp %{S:1} %{S:2} %{buildroot}/%{_docdir}/%{name}
Done
> Could you take a look at the test suite output? It's showing diffs, but
> there are apparently only whitespace differences because as far as I can
> tell all the numbers are the same.
The lines just came out in the wrong order, but the results match, patch added
>
> Please fix this rpmlint warning:
>
> exodusii-devel.x86_64: W: no-dependency-on exodusii/exodusii-libs/libexodusii
Done
> -doc subpackage should be noarch (BuildArch: noarch).
Done
>
> Rpmlint (installed packages)
>
> exodusii.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
> /usr/lib64/libexoIIv2c-5.14.0.so /lib64/libhdf5.so.10
> exodusii.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
> /usr/lib64/libexoIIv2c-5.14.0.so /lib64/libhdf5_hl.so.10
> exodusii.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
> /usr/lib64/libexoIIv2c-5.14.0.so /lib64/libz.so.1
> exodusii.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libexoIIv2c-5.14.0.so
> exit@GLIBC_2.2.5
> exodusii.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
> /usr/lib64/libexoIIv2for-5.14.0.so /lib64/libnetcdf.so.11
> exodusii.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
> /usr/lib64/libexoIIv2for-5.14.0.so /lib64/libhdf5.so.10
> exodusii.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
> /usr/lib64/libexoIIv2for-5.14.0.so /lib64/libhdf5_hl.so.10
> exodusii.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
> /usr/lib64/libexoIIv2for-5.14.0.so /lib64/libz.so.1
> exodusii-devel.x86_64: W: no-dependency-on exodusii/exodusii-libs/libexodusii
>
> It looks like the libraries are linked to libhdf5 and libhdf5_hl
> unnecessarily. That is, they don't seem to reference any symbols from
> libhdf5*. Please verify and fix if necessary.
How did you get these warning? I ran rpmlint before, but didn't see these.
Anyhow, they linked against libz and libhdf5 to support static libs, which we
don't build. Fix that over-linking bug
> README is packaged twice (once in main package and second time in -doc).
Done
Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/junghans/fedora-review/master/exodusii/exodusii.spec
SRPM URL:
https://github.com/junghans/fedora-review/raw/master/exodusii/exodusii-6.02-3.fc24.src.rpm
--
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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1336552] Review Request: exodusii - Library to store and retrieve transient finite element data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1336552
--- Comment #8 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski ---
Please post both spec and srpm URL each time you make a revision.
Issues found in current revision:
%install
[...]
cp %{S:1} %{S:2} %{buildroot}/%{_docdir}/%{name}
please use either cp -p or install -p here.
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Timestamps)
Could you take a look at the test suite output? It's showing diffs, but there
are apparently only whitespace differences because as far as I can tell all the
numbers are the same.
Please fix this rpmlint warning:
exodusii-devel.x86_64: W: no-dependency-on exodusii/exodusii-libs/libexodusii
This is actually mandated by the guidelines
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package).
-doc subpackage should be noarch (BuildArch: noarch).
Rpmlint (installed packages)
exodusii.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libexoIIv2c-5.14.0.so /lib64/libhdf5.so.10
exodusii.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libexoIIv2c-5.14.0.so /lib64/libhdf5_hl.so.10
exodusii.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libexoIIv2c-5.14.0.so /lib64/libz.so.1
exodusii.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libexoIIv2c-5.14.0.so
exit@GLIBC_2.2.5
exodusii.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libexoIIv2for-5.14.0.so /lib64/libnetcdf.so.11
exodusii.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libexoIIv2for-5.14.0.so /lib64/libhdf5.so.10
exodusii.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libexoIIv2for-5.14.0.so /lib64/libhdf5_hl.so.10
exodusii.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libexoIIv2for-5.14.0.so /lib64/libz.so.1
exodusii-devel.x86_64: W: no-dependency-on exodusii/exodusii-libs/libexodusii
It looks like the libraries are linked to libhdf5 and libhdf5_hl unnecessarily.
That is, they don't seem to reference any symbols from libhdf5*. Please verify
and fix if necessary.
README is packaged twice (once in main package and second time in -doc).
--
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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1336552] Review Request: exodusii - Library to store and retrieve transient finite element data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1336552 --- Comment #7 from Christoph Junghans --- (In reply to Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski from comment #6) > The spec file URL stays the same, but the SRPM should be different due to > bumped Release field. Done New SPRM URL: https://github.com/junghans/fedora-review/raw/master/exodusii/exodusii-6.02-2.fc24.src.rpm -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1336552] Review Request: exodusii - Library to store and retrieve transient finite element data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1336552 --- Comment #6 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski --- The spec file URL stays the same, but the SRPM should be different due to bumped Release field. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1336552] Review Request: exodusii - Library to store and retrieve transient finite element data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1336552 --- Comment #5 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski --- After each change during review process, you should increase the Release: field, describe the changes in %changelog and post a new set of URLs for the spec file and the SRPM. That way, fedora-review can be run again on the new files. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1336552] Review Request: exodusii - Library to store and retrieve transient finite element data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1336552 --- Comment #4 from Christoph Junghans --- (In reply to Christoph Junghans from comment #3) > (In reply to Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski from comment #2) > > - the paper about Exodus and the manual are also worth including, maybe in a > > separate -doc subpackage: > > http://prod.sandia.gov/techlib/access-control.cgi/1992/922137.pdf > > http://endo.sandia.gov/SEACAS/Documentation/exodusII.pdf > I could do that Done -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1336552] Review Request: exodusii - Library to store and retrieve transient finite element data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1336552
--- Comment #3 from Christoph Junghans ---
(In reply to Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski from comment #2)
> Issues:
> ===
> - Dist tag is NOT present.
Done
> - Release should start at '1'.
Done
> - Please justify your strange naming convention
Following Debian and OpenSuse! There was an exodus v1 and this is exodus v2,
hence exodusII
> - Is there any point in having the Fortran library in a separate package? Its
> dependencies are identical to the C library except it also depends on the C
> library.
Combined
> - %defattr(-,root,root,-) is already the default, please drop it
Done
> - SONAMEs for the libraries are unversioned, which is dangerous to the
> consumers
Added a patch from OpenSue to fix that.
> - license texts are not included as %license (exodus/COPYRIGHT and
> nemesis/COPYRIGHT)
Done
> - License: tag should be just BSD
Done
> - the READMEs are also worth including as %doc
Done
> - the paper about Exodus and the manual are also worth including, maybe in a
> separate -doc subpackage:
> http://prod.sandia.gov/techlib/access-control.cgi/1992/922137.pdf
> http://endo.sandia.gov/SEACAS/Documentation/exodusII.pdf
I could do that
> - CMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX, CMAKE_C_FLAGS_RELEASE, CMAKE_CXX_FLAGS_RELEASE
> are already set by %cmake macro, please drop them.
Done
> - you don't need to set CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE
Done
> - Group: tag is invalid. Please either drop it (it's optional) or use a valid
> group name
Done
> - No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in exodusii-devel
Done
> - %changelog is empty. The first entry should be something like "initial
> package".
Done
> - Upstream seems to be here: https://github.com/gsjaardema/seacas#exodus
> and no versions are listed. Why are you packaging source tarball from
> gentoo
> distfiles instead of upstream snapshot? Please correct the URL tag, too.
seacas has a different API and the link to the tarball on the github page
actaully not pointing to exodus, but back to seacas.
> - There's a testsuite (make check), but it requires /bin/csh to be present
> to run. Please add it to BR and add a %check section. You may need to set
> LD_LIBRARY_PATH accordingly. Also,
Done
> = MUST items =
> [!]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
> license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
> license(s) for the package is included in %license.
Done
> [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
> Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
> found: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 35 files have unknown
> license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
> /home/rathann/build/review/1336552-exodusii/licensecheck.txt
DOne
> [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
Done
> [!]: Changelog in prescribed format.
Done
> [!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
> Note: %defattr present but not needed
Done
> [!]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
Done ?
> [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
> Provides are present.
N/A
> [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
Done
> = SHOULD items =
> [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
> Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
> libexoIIv2c , libexoIIv2for , exodusii-devel , exodusii-debuginfo
Done
> [!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
Done
New SPRM URL:
https://github.com/junghans/fedora-review/raw/master/exodusii/exodusii-6.02-1.fc24.src.rpm
--
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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1336552] Review Request: exodusii - Library to store and retrieve transient finite element data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1336552
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|domi...@greysector.net
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Dist tag is NOT present.
- Release should start at '1'.
- Please justify your strange naming convention
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Naming).
I think better naming would be:
exodus - main C library
exodus-fortran - Fortran library
exodus-devel - devel package
s/exodus/exodusii/ would also be acceptable.
- Is there any point in having the Fortran library in a separate package? Its
dependencies are identical to the C library except it also depends on the C
library.
- %defattr(-,root,root,-) is already the default, please drop it
- SONAMEs for the libraries are unversioned, which is dangerous to the
consumers
of this package if it's updated with ABI changes. If upstream does have ABI
versioning, please work with upstream on this as well. Just renaming the
files to include the version in the name is not acceptable:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Downstream_.so_name_versioning
- license texts are not included as %license (exodus/COPYRIGHT and
nemesis/COPYRIGHT)
- License: tag should be just BSD
- the READMEs are also worth including as %doc
- the paper about Exodus and the manual are also worth including, maybe in a
separate -doc subpackage:
http://prod.sandia.gov/techlib/access-control.cgi/1992/922137.pdf
http://endo.sandia.gov/SEACAS/Documentation/exodusII.pdf
- CMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX, CMAKE_C_FLAGS_RELEASE, CMAKE_CXX_FLAGS_RELEASE
are already set by %cmake macro, please drop them.
- you don't need to set CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE
- Group: tag is invalid. Please either drop it (it's optional) or use a valid
group name
- No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in exodusii-devel
- %changelog is empty. The first entry should be something like "initial
package".
- Upstream seems to be here: https://github.com/gsjaardema/seacas#exodus
and no versions are listed. Why are you packaging source tarball from gentoo
distfiles instead of upstream snapshot? Please correct the URL tag, too.
- There's a testsuite (make check), but it requires /bin/csh to be present
to run. Please add it to BR and add a %check section. You may need to set
LD_LIBRARY_PATH accordingly. Also,
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[!]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 35 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/rathann/build/review/1336552-exodusii/licensecheck.txt
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[!]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[!]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need
[Bug 1336552] Review Request: exodusii - Library to store and retrieve transient finite element data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1336552 --- Comment #1 from Christoph Junghans --- Ping -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1336552] Review Request: exodusii - Library to store and retrieve transient finite element data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1336552 Christoph Junghans changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://github.com/losalamo ||s/flecsi/issues/74 -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1336552] Review Request: exodusii - Library to store and retrieve transient finite element data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1336552 Christoph Junghans changed: What|Removed |Added URL||http://koji.fedoraproject.o ||rg/koji/taskinfo?taskID=141 ||15052 -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
