[fedora-java] rawhide report: 20140415 changes

[Mat Booth]

On 29 April 2014 22:22, Deepak Bhole <dbhole at redhat.com> wrote:

> * Mat Booth <fedora at matbooth.co.uk> [2014-04-22 05:50]:
> > On 16 April 2014 14:35, Deepak Bhole <dbhole at redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> >     * Mat Booth <fedora at matbooth.co.uk> [2014-04-16 04:36]:
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > On 15 April 2014 17:55, Fedora Rawhide Report <
> rawhide at fedoraproject.org>
> >     > wrote:
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >     Broken deps for i386
> >     >     ----------------------------------------------------------
> >     >     [sinjdoc]
> >     >             sinjdoc-0.5-16.fc21.i686 requires java-gcj-compat >=
> 0:1.0.70
> >     >             sinjdoc-0.5-16.fc21.i686 requires java-gcj-compat >=
> 0:1.0.70
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > Can sinjdoc be retired now? I can't think of a case where you
> would use
> >     it over
> >     > the OpenJDK implementation of javadoc.
> >     >
> >
> >     I agree, it should be retired. I have done so in pkgdb.
> >
> >     Thanks for bringing it to attention!
> >
> >     Deepak
> >
> >
> >
> > No problem.
> >
> > It's still showing up in the rawhide report however. If you use "fedpkg
> retire"
> > command, that should also automatically block the package in rawhide.
>
> Sorry for the late reply.. just tried this and got an error:
> "dbhole is not allowed to change ownership of this package"
>
> Looks like retiring in pkgdb first was a bad idea. Wish the tool had
> warned :/ Is it still showing up in the report?
>
> Deepak
>
>
Yes, it still on this morning's report:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2014-May/198853.html

I have filed a rel-eng ticket to fix it:
https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5896

-- 
Mat Booth
http://fedoraproject.org/get-fedora
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/java-devel/attachments/20140501/c8a7b5fc/attachment.html>