Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: libirman - Library for IRMAN hardware
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474992
Summary: Review Request: libirman - Library for IRMAN hardware Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: ondrejj@salstar.sk QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: http://www.salstar.sk/pub/fedora/SPECS/libirman.spec SRPM URL: http://www.salstar.sk/pub/fedora/SRPMS/10/libirman-0.4.4-2.fc10.src.rpm Description: A library for accessing the IRMAN hardware from Linux and other Unix systems.
This package contains only a static library. It's not suggested to use static libraries in Fedora, but it's not forbidden.
If somebody can help me to patch this to build as shared (libirman.so), please send me or attach patch here.
This library is required to update lirc to use IRMAN hardware. I can make required changes in lirc.spec after this package will be approved.
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=474992
Fabian Affolter fabian@bernewireless.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fabian@bernewireless.net
--- Comment #1 from Fabian Affolter fabian@bernewireless.net 2008-12-06 08:54:19 EDT --- Just some quick comments on your spec file
- 'Release: 3%{?dist}' should be 'Release: 1%{?dist}' and your changelog entry doesn't match the release. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Changelogs
[fab@laptop024 i386]$ rpmlint libirman* libirman.i386: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.4.4-2 ['0.4.4-3.fc9', '0.4.4-3'] 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
- URL should point to the website of the upstream project. Why not http://www.lirc.org/ ?
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=474992
--- Comment #2 from Jan ONDREJ ondrejj@salstar.sk 2008-12-06 13:06:58 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1)
Just some quick comments on your spec file
- 'Release: 3%{?dist}' should be 'Release: 1%{?dist}' and your changelog entry
doesn't match the release. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Changelogs
ChangeLog entry fixed. This release 3 is because there is libirman of this release in my repository and I need updates from this version.
[fab@laptop024 i386]$ rpmlint libirman* libirman.i386: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.4.4-2 ['0.4.4-3.fc9', '0.4.4-3'] 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Thanks. For info.
- URL should point to the website of the upstream project. Why not
I think lirc is not upstream for this, it's just required by this package. But if you stand that this URL is better, I can change it.
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=474992
--- Comment #3 from Fabian Affolter fabian@bernewireless.net 2009-02-02 08:38:42 EDT --- Is there a new Source RPM somewhere?
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=474992
--- Comment #4 from Jan ONDREJ ondrejj@salstar.sk 2009-02-02 09:40:58 EDT --- Yes, I forgot to add them. Spec file URL is unchanged:
http://www.salstar.sk/pub/fedora/SPECS/libirman.spec http://www.salstar.sk/pub/fedora/SRPMS/10/libirman-0.4.4-3.fc10.src.rpm
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=474992
Jan ONDREJ ondrejj@salstar.sk changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jwilson@redhat.com
--- Comment #5 from Jan ONDREJ ondrejj@salstar.sk 2009-02-02 09:44:17 EDT --- Jarod, can you look if it helps to build IRMAN support in fedora's lirc package? I also can create another bug for lirc and help to add IRMAN support.
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=474992
Tom Hughes tom@compton.nu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tom@compton.nu
--- Comment #6 from Tom Hughes tom@compton.nu 2009-02-18 06:05:31 EDT --- I believe lirc is now the effective upstream for this. I have just reworked the build process to make shared library builds possible (with the intention of then submitting a Fedora package) and I submitted those back to the lirc folks who committed them to their CVS tree.
Getting lirc supporting libirman should be as simple as adding a libirman-devel BuildRequires to the lirc spec file - it was for me.
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=474992
--- Comment #7 from Jarod Wilson jwilson@redhat.com 2009-02-18 09:03:52 EDT --- Apologies, meant to look at this earlier... Yeah, once libirman is being built into Fedora, it should definitely be as straight-forward as BR: libirman-devel.
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=474992
Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |tibbs@math.uh.edu Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #8 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2009-03-13 16:04:25 EDT --- Well, it's been a few weeks and nobody else has stepped in, so I'll review this even though I don't have the hardware.
For a multiple license scenario like this, you need to indicate (usually by a comment in the spec) which parts of the package are under which license. I'm not sure which part of the main package might fall under the LGPL.
I don't see anywhere in the code that a version of the GPL or LGPL is specified, which makes the situation complex. The LGPL parts end up as LGPLv2+ while GPL parts end up as GPL+, which when compiled together make the result GPLv2+. Ugh.
I'm not sure why you call ldconfig; no dynamic libraries are installed by this package. Actually, you get a static lib even though you pass --disable-static. Any idea what's going on?
* source files match upstream. sha256sum: b29d0858450c56fca97c03cb1032e3b469166d431bfa7327fa3183d31a9f64b2 libirman-0.4.4.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. ? unsure whether the license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper (none). * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: libirman-0.4.4-3.fc11.x86_64.rpm config(libirman) = 0.4.4-3.fc11 libirman = 0.4.4-3.fc11 libirman(x86-64) = 0.4.4-3.fc11 = /sbin/ldconfig config(libirman) = 0.4.4-3.fc11
libirman-devel-0.4.4-3.fc11.x86_64.rpm libirman-static = 0.4.4-3.fc11 libirman-devel = 0.4.4-3.fc11 libirman-devel(x86-64) = 0.4.4-3.fc11 = libirman = 0.4.4-3.fc11
* owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no generically named files X ldconfig scriptlets present, but I'm not sure why. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * headers are in the -devel package. * no pkgconfig files. * static libraries are present: No dynamic libs, so they can be in the -devel package. -static provide is there. * no libtool .la files.
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=474992
--- Comment #9 from Tom Hughes tom@compton.nu 2009-03-13 17:31:30 EDT --- The reason it is static despite the switch is that the 0.4.4 release of libirman doesn't support shared builds at all.
The current upstream CVS code does support shared builds and will respect the switch and produce shared objects.
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=474992
--- Comment #10 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2009-03-13 17:40:21 EDT --- Would it be better to either wait for a newer release or to pull a snapshot from CVS? I have no way of objectively determining whether we would benefit from having a dynamic library here.
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=474992
--- Comment #11 from Jan ONDREJ ondrejj@salstar.sk 2009-03-14 04:52:01 EDT --- Thank you for review.
About license, there is 2 licenses mentioned in README. Added comment into spec file: #The files which make up the library are covered under the GNU Library #General Public License, which is in the file COPYING.lib. #The files which make up the test programs and the documentation are covered #under the GNU General Public License, which is in the file COPYING. License: GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+
My new rpms have included latest CVS patch. This patch removed Makefile.in and added Makefile.am, there is no configure script, so I have to include some buildrequires to create this with autogen.sh .
This patch adds dynamic library build for libirman and also fixes IRMAN restart, because it's required to stop powering IRMAN before reinit. I see no other changes in this version.
%changelog * Sat Mar 14 2009 Jan ONDREJ (SAL) <ondrejj(at)salstar.sk> - 0.4.4-4.20090314cvs - applied cvs patch, which fixed dynamic library build and IRMAN restart - added BuildRequires: autoconf, automake, libtool
rpmlint show just this warning, I think I can do nothing with this: libirman.i386: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libirman.so.0.0.0 exit@GLIBC_2.0
New packages: http://www.salstar.sk/pub/fedora/SPECS/libirman.spec http://www.salstar.sk/pub/fedora/SRPMS/10/libirman-0.4.4-4.20090314cvs.fc10....
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=474992
--- Comment #12 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2009-04-01 14:24:22 EDT --- Sorry for taking so long; I had too many reviews in flight and somehow this one slipped through the cracks. Please feel free to ping me if I've let something go idle for too long.
You seem to have clarified the license situation well enough, and the static stuff is gone, which is good.
However, it's kind of weird to patch up to a CVS snapshot by including a patch thats larger than the source tarball. It's OK to pick patches out of the upstream SCM if that's what you want, but if you want to ship a snapshot, it's better to simply do a checkout and include that as your tarball. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL for information on how we do this. Basically, you make the tarball but include instructions for generating it so that someone else who comes along will know where it came from. Currently you just have this big patch with no information on duplicating it.
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=474992
--- Comment #13 from Jan ONDREJ ondrejj@salstar.sk 2009-04-02 02:33:58 EDT --- (In reply to comment #12)
Sorry for taking so long;
No problem. We have time. I also forgot that I have an open review. :)
However, it's kind of weird to patch up to a CVS snapshot by including a patch thats larger than the source tarball. It's OK to pick patches out of the upstream SCM if that's what you want, but if you want to ship a snapshot, it's better to simply do a checkout and include that as your tarball. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL for information on how we do this. Basically, you make the tarball but include instructions for generating it so that someone else who comes along will know where it came from. Currently you just have this big patch with no information on duplicating it.
OK, repackaged as source and also sent an email to upstream mailinglist, which is asking to release this as stable (or at least official snapshot).
New package can be found here: http://www.salstar.sk/pub/fedora/SPECS/libirman.spec
http://www.salstar.sk/pub/fedora/SRPMS/10/libirman-0.4.4-5.20090314cvs.fc10....
It was also possible to strip patch by removing "configure" part, which is autoregenerated later from spec file.
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=474992
--- Comment #14 from Jan ONDREJ ondrejj@salstar.sk 2009-04-06 08:58:35 EDT --- If somebody interested, here is my email to lirc mailinglist:
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=20090402060831.GO62...
Without any reply yet. :-(
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=474992
--- Comment #15 from Jan ONDREJ ondrejj@salstar.sk 2009-04-10 13:40:48 EDT --- Upstream release a new stable version.
New RPMs:
http://www.salstar.sk/pub/fedora/SPECS/libirman.spec http://www.salstar.sk/pub/fedora/SRPMS/10/libirman-0.4.5-1.fc10.src.rpm
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=474992
--- Comment #16 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2009-04-16 15:54:21 EDT --- This seems to be new: libirman.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/workmanir ['/usr/lib64']
Any idea why that's just showing up now?
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=474992
--- Comment #17 from Jan ONDREJ ondrejj@salstar.sk 2009-04-18 02:46:33 EDT --- (In reply to comment #16)
Any idea why that's just showing up now?
It has something with autoconf used to generate files in original package. In CVS there was no configure scripts and they was regenerated from spec file.
Only --disable-rpath parameter does not help.
There are 2 solutions: 1. use autoreconf in spec to create new scripts 2. use chrpath
Solution #1 applied in my spec file: http://www.salstar.sk/pub/fedora/SPECS/libirman.spec http://www.salstar.sk/pub/fedora/SRPMS/10/libirman-0.4.5-2.fc10.src.rpm
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=474992
--- Comment #18 from Jan ONDREJ ondrejj@salstar.sk 2009-04-28 10:49:42 EDT --- PING,
anything else, what I can do to be this package approved? :)
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=474992
--- Comment #19 from Jan ONDREJ ondrejj@salstar.sk 2009-05-11 16:16:55 EDT --- (In reply to comment #12)
Please feel free to me if I've let something go idle for too long.
Ping again.
No reply more then 4 weeks. :(
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=474992
--- Comment #20 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2009-05-11 16:23:06 EDT --- I first reviewed this when I had time to do reviews, but because of the delay I now have very little time to do it. You are welcome to find another reviewer, or wait until I have more time. Your choice.
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=474992
--- Comment #21 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2009-05-16 19:47:33 EDT --- OK, I found some time. Unfortunately the package in comment #17 does not build for me in current F11. I get a bunch of bizarre errors with libtool such as:
./libtool: line 793: X--tag=CC: command not found ./libtool: line 826: libtool: ignoring unknown tag : command not found
which cascade into:
./libtool: line 1103: X.deps/libirman_la-chunk.Tpo: No such file or directory ./libtool: line 1103: X-c: command not found ./libtool: line 1154: Xlibirman_la-chunk.lo: command not found ./libtool: line 1159: libtool: compile: cannot determine name of library object from `': command not found
To rule out problems with my local mock setup, I did a koji build which failed as well: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1358328
It does build in F10, though. Can you work out what's broken in F11, or would you like me to review an F10 build?
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=474992
--- Comment #22 from Jan ONDREJ ondrejj@salstar.sk 2009-05-17 03:01:29 EDT --- %changelog * Sun May 17 2009 Ján ONDREJ (SAL) <ondrejj(at)salstar.sk> - 0.4.5-3 - added libtoolize to fix build for f11
Builds for f11 now.
http://www.salstar.sk/pub/fedora/SPECS/libirman.spec http://www.salstar.sk/pub/fedora/SRPMS/10/libirman-0.4.5-3.fc10.src.rpm
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=474992
Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #23 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2009-05-27 16:56:33 EDT --- Indeed, this builds fine. The complaints I had seem to be all solved now, and the package looks OK to me.
APPROVED
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=474992
Jan ONDREJ ondrejj@salstar.sk changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #24 from Jan ONDREJ ondrejj@salstar.sk 2009-05-28 03:05:33 EDT --- Thank you. Looking that Kevin is on holiday, so please add CVS. :-)
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: libirman Short Description: Library for IRMAN hardware Owners: ondrejj Branches: F-10 F-11
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=474992
Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
--- Comment #25 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2009-05-28 12:02:54 EDT --- CVS done.
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=474992
--- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2009-05-28 12:33:01 EDT --- libirman-0.4.5-3.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libirman-0.4.5-3.fc11
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=474992
--- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2009-05-28 12:33:40 EDT --- libirman-0.4.5-3.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libirman-0.4.5-3.fc10
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=474992
--- Comment #28 from Jarod Wilson jwilson@redhat.com 2009-05-28 12:54:27 EDT --- Building lirc w/irman support in rawhide now. Not sure if I need to wait a bit before I can do F10/F11 builds...
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=474992
--- Comment #29 from Jarod Wilson jwilson@redhat.com 2009-05-28 13:02:24 EDT --- Ugh. Rawhide build failed, can't find libirman-devel yet for some reason. I'll just wait a bit to build.
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=474992
--- Comment #30 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2009-05-28 13:16:36 EDT --- For rawhide, you just have to wait for a newrepo task to complete.
For the release branches, you need to wait until either the next updates push or request from releng that the package you need be tagged into the buildroot. Honestly I don't know if or how the not-yet-released status of F11 alters that.
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=474992
--- Comment #31 from Jan ONDREJ ondrejj@salstar.sk 2009-05-29 09:40:38 EDT --- Jarod, libirman has been just moved to F10/F11:
Subject: libirman-0.4.5-3.fc11 successfully moved from dist-f11-updates-candidate into dist-f11-updates by bodhi Subject: libirman-0.4.5-3.fc10 successfully moved from dist-f10-updates-candidate into dist-f10-updates by bodhi
These should be available now or in a few minutes.
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=474992
Jan ONDREJ ondrejj@salstar.sk changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |CURRENTRELEASE
--- Comment #32 from Jan ONDREJ ondrejj@salstar.sk 2009-05-29 12:51:27 EDT --- Thanks to all, lirc-0.8.5-2.fc10.i386 works well with IRMAN. :-)
Closing bug.
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=474992
--- Comment #33 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2009-05-29 22:32:18 EDT --- libirman-0.4.5-3.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
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=474992
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version| |0.4.5-3.fc10 Resolution|CURRENTRELEASE |NEXTRELEASE
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=474992
--- Comment #34 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2009-05-29 22:34:57 EDT --- libirman-0.4.5-3.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
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=474992
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|0.4.5-3.fc10 |0.4.5-3.fc11
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=474992
Jan ONDREJ ondrejj@salstar.sk changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #35 from Jan ONDREJ ondrejj@salstar.sk 2011-10-06 01:41:39 EDT --- Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: libirman New Branches: el6 Owners: ondrejj
Requested in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=743566
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=474992
--- Comment #36 from Jon Ciesla limb@jcomserv.net 2011-10-06 08:26:15 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla