https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645848
--- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System ---
libb64-1.2-3.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645848
--- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System ---
libb64-1.2-3.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645848
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645848
--- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System ---
libb64-1.2-3.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645848
--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System ---
libb64-1.2-3.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645848
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #22 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645848
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System ---
libb64-1.2-3.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-ea295e864d
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645848
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System ---
libb64-1.2-3.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-e39db43366
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645848
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|POST|MODIFIED
--- Comment #19 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645848
--- Comment #18 from Gwyn Ciesla ---
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libb64
--
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=1645848
--- Comment #17 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) ---
Thanks for the review, Robert. SCM requested:
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/8768
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645848
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645848
--- Comment #15 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
(In reply to Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) from comment #14)
> (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #13)
> > The license field should be CC0. The website links to Creative Commons Zero
> >
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645848
--- Comment #14 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #13)
> The license field should be CC0. The website links to Creative Commons Zero
> 1.0 Universal.
Hrm, but he goes "This work is released into
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645848
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645848
Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Alias||libb64
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645848
--- Comment #12 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) ---
Hello,
Would either of you be able to do the formal review for libb64 here? I'll
request a review swap on the devel list again, otherwise.
Cheers,
Ankur
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645848
--- Comment #11 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) ---
(In reply to Artur Iwicki from comment #10)
> From what I've seen, libraries in Fedora usually are divided like this:
> - main package: stuff needed for running executables using the lib
> -
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645848
--- Comment #10 from Artur Iwicki ---
From what I've seen, libraries in Fedora usually are divided like this:
- main package: stuff needed for running executables using the lib
- devel: headers
- static: stuff needed for static compilation
-
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645848
--- Comment #9 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) ---
(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #8)
> > Can you please be more clear on what I'm missing here? Is it the addition of
> > -O3 to the flags? I've corrected that bit now, but you'll
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645848
--- Comment #8 from Michael Schwendt ---
> Can you please be more clear on what I'm missing here? Is it the addition of
> -O3 to the flags? I've corrected that bit now, but you'll have to point out
> what else I'm missing, I'm afraid.
Yes,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645848
--- Comment #7 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) ---
(In reply to Manas Mangaonkar (Pac23) from comment #6)
> libb64.x86_64: - can you include a man page for the binary libb64-base64
Not really. Upstream doesn't provide one :(
> also a zero
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645848
Manas Mangaonkar changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manasmangaon...@gmail.com
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645848
--- Comment #5 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) ---
(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #4)
> * /usr/bin/base64 conflicts with coreutils [!]
Ugh, and it seems to do the exact same thing too. However, coreutils does not
provide the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645848
--- Comment #4 from Michael Schwendt ---
* /usr/bin/base64 conflicts with coreutils [!]
* The explicit dependencies are dubious:
1) The -devel subpackage does not need the base package, since it is complete
due to headers *and* the static
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645848
--- Comment #3 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) ---
(In reply to Artur Iwicki from comment #2)
> >%global _description %{expand: \
> Any particular reason for putting the description into a macro?
Sorry--left over from my spec template. Comes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645848
Artur Iwicki changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fed...@svgames.pl
--- Comment #2 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645848
Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||1276941 (fedora-neuro)
28 matches
Mail list logo
