[Bug 728649] New: Review Request: airrac - C++ Simulated Revenue Accounting (RAC) System Library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

Summary: Review Request: airrac - C++ Simulated Revenue Accounting (RAC) System Library

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728649

Summary: Review Request: airrac - C++ Simulated Revenue
                    Accounting (RAC) System Library
           Product: Fedora
           Version: rawhide
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: Linux
            Status: NEW
          Severity: medium
          Priority: medium
         Component: Package Review
        AssignedTo: [e-mail]
        ReportedBy: [e-mail]
         QAContact: [e-mail]
                CC: [e-mail],
                    [e-mail]
    Classification: Fedora
      Story Points: ---
              Type: ---

Spec URL: http://denisarnaud.fedorapeople.org/sim/airrac/airrac-0.1.0-1.spec
SRPM URL:
https://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/airrac/fedora_15/airrac-0.1.0-1.fc...
Description:
AirRAC is a C++ library of airline revenue accounting classes and
functions, mainly targeting simulation purposes.

[Bug 728649] Review Request: airrac - C++ Simulated Revenue Accounting (RAC) System Library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=728649

Denis Arnaud  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Depends on|                            |702987

[Bug 728649] Review Request: airrac - C++ Simulated Revenue Accounting (RAC) System Library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=728649

Martin Krizek  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

Bug 728649 depends on bug 702987, which changed state.

Bug 702987 Summary: Review Request: stdair - C++ Standard Airline IT Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=702987

What    |Old Value                   |New Value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Resolution|                            |ERRATA
             Status|ON_QA                       |CLOSED

--- Comment #1 from Martin Krizek  2011-08-18 09:24:08 EDT ---
Hi Denis,
*informal* review follows:

[ OK ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the
build produces. The output should be posted in the review.
$ rpmlint rpmbuild/SPECS/airrac.spec Downloads/airrac-0.1.0-1.fc15.src.rpm 
1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[ OK ] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines.
[ BAD ] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. ===> Needs to be
renamed to airrac.spec
[ OK ] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[ OK ] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and
meet the Licensing Guidelines.
[ OK ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[ OK ] 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.
[ OK ] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[ OK ] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[ OK ] 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.
[ BAD ] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms
on at least one primary architecture.
[ BAD ] 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.
===> I could not build rpm from provided srpm using 'mock -r fedora-15-x86_64
--rebuild airrac-0.1.0-1.fc15.src.rpm' -- seems like problem with tex, sorry if
it was my bad due to unapproriate usage of mock.
[ OK ] 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.
[ NA ] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using
the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[ OK ] 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.
[ OK ] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[ OK ] 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.
[ OK ] 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.
[ OK ] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific
situations)
[ OK ] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be
set with executable permissions, for example.
[ OK ] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[ OK ] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[ OK ] 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).
[ OK ] 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.
[ OK ] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[ OK ] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[ OK ] 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.
[ OK ] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the
base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} =
%{version}-%{release}
[ BAD ] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built. ===> I am not sure about that, are there
any .la archives created? If not, consider it as OK.
[ OK ] 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.
[ OK ] 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.
[ OK ] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

[ BAD ] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
===> No license file included.
[ OK ] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[ BAD ] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. ===>
As stated above.
[ BAD ] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures. ===> As stated above.
[ OK ] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as
described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
[ OK ] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is
vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity.
[ BAD ] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency. ===> doc package doesn't require
the base package.
[ OK ] SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase,
and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel
pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not
installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb.
[ OK ] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin,
/sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the
file instead of the file itself.
[ OK ] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If
it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.

[Bug 728649] Review Request: airrac - C++ Simulated Revenue Accounting (RAC) System Library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=728649

Martin Gieseking  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]
         AssignedTo|[e-mail]    |[e-mail]
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?

--- Comment #2 from Martin Gieseking  2011-08-18 13:16:46 EDT ---
I'm going to sponsor Martin, so taking over the review. Since I'm busy at the
moment, I'll continue later tonight or tomorrow morning.

[Bug 728649] Review Request: airrac - C++ Simulated Revenue Accounting (RAC) System Library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=728649

--- Comment #3 from Martin Gieseking  2011-08-19 04:27:10 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> [ BAD ] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
> format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. ===> Needs to be
> renamed to airrac.spec

Right. However, the spec in the srpm is named correctly. It's just the name of
the separately linked spec that doesn't satisfy the guidelines.
> [ OK ] 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.

Please always add the checksums (md5sum, sha1sum,...) of both tarballs to your
reviews so that we can easily verify their identity.
> ===> I could not build rpm from provided srpm using 'mock -r fedora-15-x86_64
> --rebuild airrac-0.1.0-1.fc15.src.rpm' -- seems like problem with tex, sorry if
> it was my bad due to unapproriate usage of mock.

You ran mock correctly. ;) The package doesn't build because of the two missing
BRs python-devel and zeromq-devel.
> [ OK ] 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.

Not OK since BRs are missing, see above.
> [ OK ] 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.

Not OK: %{_datadir}/%{name}/ is unowned. Denis, add "%dir %{_datadir}/%{name}/"
to the devel package to fix it.
> [ BAD ] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
> removed in the spec if they are built. ===> I am not sure about that, are there
> any .la archives created? If not, consider it as OK.

There are no .la files created, so this is OK.
> [ BAD ] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
> separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
> ===> No license file included.

File COPYING is present in the base and doc package (see corresponding %files
section) ==> this is OK.
> [ BAD ] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
> package using a fully versioned dependency. ===> doc package doesn't require
> the base package.

That's OK. Plain doc packages don't have to require the base package as there
are useful without it.

=============================

$ rpmlint *.rpm
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

---------------------------------
key:

[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
---------------------------------

[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license.
    - LGPLv2+ according to manpages

[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+] MUST: The file containing the text of the license(s) for the package must
be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source.
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, ...
[X] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
    - missing BRs: python-devel, zeromq-devel

[+] MUST: When compiling C, C++, or Fortran files, %{optflags} must be applied.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
[+] MUST: Packages storing shared library files (not just symlinks) must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ...
[X] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. 
    - %{_datadir}/%{name}/ is unowned

[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[+] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application.
[+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[+] MUST: If a package contains .so files with a suffix, then .so files without
suffix must go in a -devel package.
[+] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
[.] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

EPEL <= 5 only:
[+] MUST: The spec file must contain a valid BuildRoot field.
[+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot}.
[+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot}.
[+] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'

[.] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[X] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
[+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
[.] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
[+] SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg.
[.] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
/usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file
instead of the file itself.
[+] SHOULD: Your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts.

[Bug 728649] Review Request: airrac - C++ Simulated Revenue Accounting (RAC) System Library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=728649

--- Comment #4 from Denis Arnaud  2011-08-19 12:20:06 EDT ---
Many thanks for that review!
(and sorry for the missing BRs)

The new files are as following:
-------------------------------
Spec URL: http://denisarnaud.fedorapeople.org/sim/airrac/airrac-0.1.0-2.spec
SRPM URL:
http://denisarnaud.fedorapeople.org/sim/airrac/airrac-0.1.0-2.fc15.src.rpm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Bug 728649] Review Request: airrac - C++ Simulated Revenue Accounting (RAC) System Library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=728649

Martin Gieseking  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+

--- Comment #5 from Martin Gieseking  2011-08-19 13:31:00 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Many thanks for that review!

You're welcome.

The package looks good now. However, while it builds successfully for F15, it
fails for F16: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3286699
The problem seems to be related to a newer version of the Boost libraries. You
probably have to rebuild stdair.

----------------
Package APPROVED
----------------

[Bug 728649] Review Request: airrac - C++ Simulated Revenue Accounting (RAC) System Library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=728649

--- Comment #6 from Denis Arnaud  2011-08-19 13:48:31 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> The problem seems to be related to a newer version of the Boost libraries. You
> probably have to rebuild stdair.

Absolutely. Due to the freeze for F16 Alpha, package rebuilds did not find
their way to the updates repository: they are still waiting on updates-testing:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/stdair-0.36.2-2.fc16 .

[Bug 728649] Review Request: airrac - C++ Simulated Revenue Accounting (RAC) System Library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=728649

Denis Arnaud  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|                            |fedora-cvs?

[Bug 728649] Review Request: airrac - C++ Simulated Revenue Accounting (RAC) System Library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=728649

--- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla  2011-08-19 14:22:46 EDT ---
Please include a SCM request when setting the accompannying flag.  Thanks!

[Bug 728649] Review Request: airrac - C++ Simulated Revenue Accounting (RAC) System Library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=728649

Denis Arnaud  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |NEW
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]
          Component|Package Review              |0xFFFF
               Flag|fedora-review+              |

--- Comment #8 from Denis Arnaud  2011-08-19 16:21:02 EDT ---
New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: airrac
Short Description: C++ Simulated Revenue Accounting (RAC) System Library
Owners: denisarnaud
Branches: f14 f15 f16 el4 el5 el6
InitialCC: denisarnaud

[Bug 728649] Review Request: airrac - C++ Simulated Revenue Accounting (RAC) System Library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=728649

Denis Arnaud  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|                            |fedora-cvs?

[Bug 728649] Review Request: airrac - C++ Simulated Revenue Accounting (RAC) System Library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=728649

--- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla  2011-08-19 22:08:36 EDT ---
Martin, please set review flag to +.

[Bug 728649] Review Request: airrac - C++ Simulated Revenue Accounting (RAC) System Library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=728649

Martin Gieseking  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
          Component|0xFFFF                      |Package Review
         AssignedTo|[e-mail]     |[e-mail]

[Bug 728649] Review Request: airrac - C++ Simulated Revenue Accounting (RAC) System Library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=728649

Martin Gieseking  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|[e-mail]    |[e-mail]
               Flag|                            |fedora-review+

--- Comment #10 from Martin Gieseking  2011-08-20 01:35:24 EDT ---
OK, someone played around with the ticket properties. ;) Setting component back
to "Package Review" and the review flag to +.
Denis, please set the fedora-cvs flag again.

[Bug 728649] Review Request: airrac - C++ Simulated Revenue Accounting (RAC) System Library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=728649

Denis Arnaud  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|                            |fedora-cvs?

--- Comment #11 from Denis Arnaud  2011-08-20 04:53:05 EDT ---
New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: airrac
Short Description: C++ Simulated Revenue Accounting (RAC) System Library
Owners: denisarnaud
Branches: f14 f15 f16 el4 el5 el6
InitialCC: denisarnaud

[Bug 728649] Review Request: airrac - C++ Simulated Revenue Accounting (RAC) System Library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=728649

--- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla  2011-08-20 11:13:08 EDT ---
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Once more, with feeling.  And a one, and a two. . .

[Bug 728649] Review Request: airrac - C++ Simulated Revenue Accounting (RAC) System Library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=728649

Fedora Update System  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |MODIFIED

[Bug 728649] Review Request: airrac - C++ Simulated Revenue Accounting (RAC) System Library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=728649

--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  2011-08-20 20:30:48 EDT ---
airrac-0.1.0-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/airrac-0.1.0-2.fc16

[Bug 728649] Review Request: airrac - C++ Simulated Revenue Accounting (RAC) System Library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=728649

--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System  2011-08-20 20:35:10 EDT ---
airrac-0.1.0-2.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/airrac-0.1.0-2.fc14

[Bug 728649] Review Request: airrac - C++ Simulated Revenue Accounting (RAC) System Library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=728649

--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System  2011-08-20 22:12:10 EDT ---
airrac-0.1.1-1.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/airrac-0.1.1-1.fc15

[Bug 728649] Review Request: airrac - C++ Simulated Revenue Accounting (RAC) System Library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=728649

Fedora Update System  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|MODIFIED                    |ON_QA

--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System  2011-08-22 14:35:27 EDT ---
airrac-0.1.0-2.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 testing repository.

[Bug 728649] Review Request: airrac - C++ Simulated Revenue Accounting (RAC) System Library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=728649

--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System  2011-08-30 16:38:06 EDT ---
airrac-0.1.0-2.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.

[Bug 728649] Review Request: airrac - C++ Simulated Revenue Accounting (RAC) System Library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=728649

Fedora Update System  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ON_QA                       |CLOSED
   Fixed In Version|                            |airrac-0.1.0-2.fc16
         Resolution|                            |ERRATA
        Last Closed|                            |2011-08-30 16:38:11

[Bug 728649] Review Request: airrac - C++ Simulated Revenue Accounting (RAC) System Library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=728649

--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System  2011-08-30 21:33:53 EDT ---
airrac-0.1.1-1.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository.

[Bug 728649] Review Request: airrac - C++ Simulated Revenue Accounting (RAC) System Library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=728649

Fedora Update System  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Fixed In Version|airrac-0.1.0-2.fc16         |airrac-0.1.1-1.fc15

[Bug 728649] Review Request: airrac - C++ Simulated Revenue Accounting (RAC) System Library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=728649

--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System  2011-08-30 21:37:54 EDT ---
airrac-0.1.0-2.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository.

[Bug 728649] Review Request: airrac - C++ Simulated Revenue Accounting (RAC) System Library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=728649

Fedora Update System  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Fixed In Version|airrac-0.1.1-1.fc15         |airrac-0.1.0-2.fc14

[Bug 728649] Review Request: airrac - C++ Simulated Revenue Accounting (RAC) System Library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=728649

Denis Arnaud  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Blocks|                            |750099

[Bug 728649] Review Request: airrac - C++ Simulated Revenue Accounting (RAC) System Library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=728649

Denis Arnaud  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Blocks|                            |760594