Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: dcap - Client Tools for dCache
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=549821
Summary: Review Request: dcap - Client Tools for dCache Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: mattias.ellert@fysast.uu.se QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: http://www.grid.tsl.uu.se/review/dcap.spec SRPM URL: http://www.grid.tsl.uu.se/review/dcap-1.2.44-1.fc12.src.rpm
Description: dCache is a distributed mass storage system. This package contains the client library and tools.
rpmlint output: $ rpmlint rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/dcap-*1.2.44-1.fc12.x86_64.rpm rpmbuild/SRPMS/dcap-1.2.44-1.fc12.src.rpm dcap.x86_64: W: no-documentation dcap-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation dcap-tunnel-gsi.x86_64: W: no-documentation dcap-tunnel-krb.x86_64: W: no-documentation dcap-tunnel-ssl.x86_64: W: no-documentation dcap-tunnel-telnet.x86_64: W: no-documentation 9 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
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=549821
--- Comment #1 from Mattias Ellert mattias.ellert@fysast.uu.se 2010-01-03 04:20:41 EDT --- Updated:
Spec URL: http://www.grid.tsl.uu.se/review/dcap.spec SRPM URL: http://www.grid.tsl.uu.se/review/dcap-1.2.44-2.fc12.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=549821
Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |steve.traylen@cern.ch AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |steve.traylen@cern.ch Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch 2010-03-07 10:18:35 EST --- Review: dcap-1.2.44-2.fc14.src.rpm Date: March 7th 2010 Koji Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2036638
* MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. $ rpmlint SPECS/dcap.spec RPMS/x86_64/dcap-* \ SRPMS/dcap-1.2.44-2.fc14.src.rpm SPECS/dcap.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: dcap-1.2.44.tar.gz dcap.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dCache -> d Cache, cache, cached dcap.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dCache -> d Cache, cache, cached dcap.x86_64: W: no-documentation dcap-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dCache -> d Cache, cache, cached dcap-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dCache -> d Cache, cache, cached dcap-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation dcap-libs.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dCache -> d Cache, cache, cached dcap-libs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dCache -> d Cache, cache, cached dcap-tunnel-gsi.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dCache -> d Cache, cache, cached dcap-tunnel-gsi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US plugin -> plug in, plug-in, plugging dcap-tunnel-gsi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libs -> lobs, lib, lbs dcap-tunnel-gsi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime -> run time, run-time, untimely dcap-tunnel-krb.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Kerberos -> Kerosene, Kerbside, Cerberus dcap-tunnel-krb.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dCache -> d Cache, cache, cached dcap-tunnel-krb.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US kerberos -> kerosene, kerbside, Cerberus dcap-tunnel-krb.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US plugin -> plug in, plug-in, plugging dcap-tunnel-krb.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libs -> lobs, lib, lbs dcap-tunnel-krb.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime -> run time, run-time, untimely dcap-tunnel-ssl.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dCache -> d Cache, cache, cached dcap-tunnel-ssl.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US plugin -> plug in, plug-in, plugging dcap-tunnel-ssl.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libs -> lobs, lib, lbs dcap-tunnel-ssl.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime -> run time, run-time, untimely dcap-tunnel-ssl.x86_64: W: no-documentation dcap-tunnel-telnet.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dCache -> d Cache, cache, cached dcap-tunnel-telnet.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US plugin -> plug in, plug-in, plugging dcap-tunnel-telnet.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libs -> lobs, lib, lbs dcap-tunnel-telnet.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime -> run time, run-time, untimely dcap-tunnel-telnet.x86_64: W: no-documentation dcap.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dCache -> d Cache, cache, cached dcap.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dCache -> d Cache, cache, cached dcap.src: W: non-coherent-filename dcap-1.2.44-2.fc14.src.rpm dcap-1.2.44-2.fc14.x86_64.rpm dcap.src: W: invalid-url Source0: dcap-1.2.44.tar.gz 9 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 33 warnings.
YES. All the spelling errors are acceptable, libs, plugins and runtime are in common usage.
* MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. YES.
* MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. YES. * MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. YES. In particular the CFLAGS being used gcc -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic -g -I. -fPIC -Wall -pedantic -pipe -D_REENTRANT -DLIBC_SYSCALLS -DOPEN_SYM="open" -DCLOSE_SYM="close" -DREAD_SYM="read" -DWRITE_SYM="write" -DLSEEK_SYM="lseek" -DLSEEK64_SYM="lseek64" -DPREAD_SYM="pread" -DPREAD64_SYM="pread64" -DPWRITE_SYM="pwrite" -DPWRITE64_SYM="pwrite64" -DSTAT_SYM="__xstat" -DSTAT64_SYM="__xstat64" -DFSTAT64_SYM="__fxstat64" -DLSTAT_SYM="__lxstat" -DLSTAT64_SYM="__lxstat64" -DFSTAT_SYM="__fxstat" -DFSYNC_SYM="fsync" -DDUP_SYM="dup" -DOPENDIR_SYM="opendir" -DCLOSEDIR_SYM="closedir" -DREADDIR_SYM="readdir" -DREADDIR64_SYM="readdir64" -DTELLDIR_SYM="telldir" -DSEEKDIR_SYM="seekdir" -DUNLINK_SYM="unlink" -DRMDIR_SYM="rmdir" -DMKDIR_SYM="mkdir" -DCHMOD_SYM="chmod" -DACCESS_SYM="access" -DRENAME_SYM="rename" -DCHOWN_SYM="chown" -DWRITEV_SYM="writev" -DREADV_SYM="readv" -D_GNU_SOURCE -c -o dcap.o dcap.c
which at least includes all of '%{optflags}.
* MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . YES. LGPLv2+ and BSD.
* MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. NO: There's a couple of files that look might they may be burrowed from elsewhere. getopt.c is a BSD one so maybe the main package should also be BSD.
addler32.c looks to have been burrowed from zlib.
* MUST: 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 must be included in %doc. YES: COPYING.LIB and LICENSE file present. * MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. YES: * MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. YES: * MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. YES: But see general comment below about versions. * MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. YES. * MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. YES. * MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. YES. * MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. YES. * MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. YES. * MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. YES. There is no obvious adler32 lib? * MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. YES. Not relocatable. * MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. YES. * MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. YES. * MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. YES. * MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). YES. * MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. YES. * MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. YES. * MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). YES. * MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. YES. * MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. YES. * MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. YES. * MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). YES. * MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. YES. * MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} YES. * MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built.[21] YES. * MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. YES. * MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. YES. * MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). YES. * MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. YES.
General comments: The source is generated with.
# svn co http://svn.dcache.org/dCache/tags/dcap-1.9.3-7 \ # dcap-1.2.44
How does 1.9.3-7 map to dcap-1.2.44 , maybe a comment to get the version out of dcap_version.c is needed just to make it clearer.
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=549821
--- Comment #3 from Mattias Ellert mattias.ellert@fysast.uu.se 2010-03-10 02:41:52 EST --- (In reply to comment #2)
Hi!
Sorry for the delay. I was waiting for upstream to make a new release I knew was going to be tagged "soon". The tagging happened yesterday, so I have created a new package based on this tag:
Spec URL: http://www.grid.tsl.uu.se/review/dcap.spec SRPM URL: http://www.grid.tsl.uu.se/review/dcap-2.44.0-1.fc12.src.rpm
- MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
NO: There's a couple of files that look might they may be burrowed from elsewhere. getopt.c is a BSD one so maybe the main package should also be BSD.
addler32.c looks to have been borrowed from zlib.
The getopt.c file is not used during compilation, so I don't think it should matter. However, there are some files in the plugins/gssapi directory that are under BSD license, which is why I already added a BSD tag to the kerberos and globus tunnel packages. What to do about the main package tag is tricky, since it is used for both the source rpm and the main binary package. The zlib license of the adler32 source was well spotted - I had overlooked that. I have changed the main License tag in the new package to:
License: LGPLv2+ and zlib and BSD
and added License tags to the sub-packages as appropriate.
General comments: The source is generated with.
# svn co http://svn.dcache.org/dCache/tags/dcap-1.9.3-7 \ # dcap-1.2.44
How does 1.9.3-7 map to dcap-1.2.44 , maybe a comment to get the version out of dcap_version.c is needed just to make it clearer.
The new version has svn tag name consistent with the version of the package.
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=549821
--- Comment #4 from Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch 2010-03-10 05:57:50 EST ---
Concerning addler32.c is it possible just to use the system zlib rather than this copy?
Steve
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=549821
--- Comment #5 from Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch 2010-03-10 06:03:15 EST --- Also given you are already creating your own tar ball then rm getopt.c is obviously trivial addition.
Steve
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=549821
--- Comment #6 from Mattias Ellert mattias.ellert@fysast.uu.se 2010-03-10 10:54:14 EST --- (In reply to comment #4)
Concerning addler32.c is it possible just to use the system zlib rather than this copy?
I contacted upstream, and they have supplied a patch for this. I have updated the package:
Spec URL: http://www.grid.tsl.uu.se/review/dcap.spec SRPM URL: http://www.grid.tsl.uu.se/review/dcap-2.44.0-2.fc12.src.rpm
(In reply to comment #5)
Also given you are already creating your own tar ball then rm getopt.c is obviously trivial addition.
Upstream's patch also removes this file. I don't know if this part of the patch will stay - some claim the getopt.c is needed on windows. But for now the file is removed by the patch supplied by upstream.
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=549821
--- Comment #7 from Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch 2010-03-11 14:17:30 EST ---
diff --brief -r dcap-2.44.0 ../SPECS/dcap-2.44.0-0/
shows they are the same.
Good,
but dist-f14 build fails http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2047198 /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.UnbB6j: line 32: aclocal: command not found RPM build errors:
autotools needs adding.
Steve
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=549821
--- Comment #8 from Mattias Ellert mattias.ellert@fysast.uu.se 2010-03-11 17:22:05 EST --- (In reply to comment #7)
but dist-f14 build fails http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2047198 /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.UnbB6j: line 32: aclocal: command not found RPM build errors:
autotools needs adding.
Duh! Me bad. New version here:
Spec URL: http://www.grid.tsl.uu.se/review/dcap.spec SRPM URL: http://www.grid.tsl.uu.se/review/dcap-2.44.0-3.fc12.src.rpm
It was a good thing doing a dist-f14 scratch build. It revealed some issues in configure.ac due to the new default behaviour of the linker. I have patched for this new issue in the new version and submitted the patch upstream.
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=549821
--- Comment #9 from Mattias Ellert mattias.ellert@fysast.uu.se 2010-03-11 17:23:37 EST --- Should have mentioned my own dist-f14 successful scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2047494
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=549821
Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #10 from Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch 2010-03-12 02:47:49 EST --- 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=549821
Mattias Ellert mattias.ellert@fysast.uu.se changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #11 from Mattias Ellert mattias.ellert@fysast.uu.se 2010-03-12 03:02:32 EST --- Thank you for the review!
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: dcap Short Description: Client Tools for dCache Owners: ellert Branches: F-11 F-12 F-13 EL-4 EL-5 InitialCC:
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=549821
Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
--- Comment #12 from Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com 2010-03-15 17:38:09 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=549821
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-03-18 03:36:03 EDT --- dcap-2.44.0-3.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dcap-2.44.0-3.fc12
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-03-18 03:36:06 EDT --- dcap-2.44.0-3.el4 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 4. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dcap-2.44.0-3.el4
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=549821
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-03-18 03:36:03 EDT --- dcap-2.44.0-3.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dcap-2.44.0-3.fc12
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-03-18 03:36:06 EDT --- dcap-2.44.0-3.el4 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 4. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dcap-2.44.0-3.el4
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=549821
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-03-18 03:36:12 EDT --- dcap-2.44.0-3.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dcap-2.44.0-3.fc13
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=549821
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-03-18 03:36:17 EDT --- dcap-2.44.0-3.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dcap-2.44.0-3.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=549821
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-03-18 03:38:20 EDT --- dcap-2.44.0-3.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dcap-2.44.0-3.el5
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=549821
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |ON_QA
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-03-18 18:34:45 EDT --- dcap-2.44.0-3.el4 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 4 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update dcap'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dcap-2.44.0-3.el4
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=549821
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-03-18 18:36:10 EDT --- dcap-2.44.0-3.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update dcap'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dcap-2.44.0-3.el5
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=549821
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |dcap-2.44.0-3.fc13 Resolution| |ERRATA
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=549821
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-03-19 23:40:35 EDT --- dcap-2.44.0-3.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 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=549821
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-03-19 23:42:09 EDT --- dcap-2.44.0-3.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=549821
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|dcap-2.44.0-3.fc13 |dcap-2.44.0-3.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=549821
--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-03-19 23:47:28 EDT --- dcap-2.44.0-3.fc12 has been pushed to the Fedora 12 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=549821
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|dcap-2.44.0-3.fc11 |dcap-2.44.0-3.fc12
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=549821
--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-04-01 22:40:02 EDT --- dcap-2.44.0-3.el4 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 4 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=549821
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|dcap-2.44.0-3.fc12 |dcap-2.44.0-3.el4
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=549821
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|dcap-2.44.0-3.el4 |dcap-2.44.0-3.el5
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=549821
--- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-04-01 22:41:35 EDT --- dcap-2.44.0-3.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla