[Bug 599097] New: Review Request: libgexiv2 - Gexiv2 is a GObject-based wrapper around the Exiv2 library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: libgexiv2 - Gexiv2 is a GObject-based wrapper around the Exiv2 library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=599097
Summary: Review Request: libgexiv2 - Gexiv2 is a GObject-based wrapper around the Exiv2 library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: sanjay.ankur@gmail.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/libgexiv2/libgexiv2.spec SRPM URL: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/libgexiv2/libgexiv2-0.0.90-1.fc13.src.rpm
Other results from a mock build are all here:
http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/libgexiv2/
Description: ligexiv2 is a GObject-based wrapper around the Exiv2 library.It makes the basic features of Exiv2 available to GNOME applications.
rpmlint output:
[Ankur@localhost SPECS]$ rpmlint libgexiv2.spec ../SRPMS/libgexiv2-0.0.90-1.fc13.src.rpm /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/result/*.rpmlibgexiv2.spec:36: W: configure-without-libdir-spec libgexiv2.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Gexiv -> Ge xiv, Ge-xiv, Gelid libgexiv2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ligexiv -> lighten, lighted, lighter libgexiv2.src:36: W: configure-without-libdir-spec libgexiv2.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Gexiv -> Ge xiv, Ge-xiv, Gelid libgexiv2.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ligexiv -> lighten, lighted, lighter libgexiv2.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Gexiv -> Ge xiv, Ge-xiv, Gelid libgexiv2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ligexiv -> lighten, lighted, lighter libgexiv2.src:36: W: configure-without-libdir-spec libgexiv2-debuginfo.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libgexiv -> Libreville, Liberian, Liberia libgexiv2-debuginfo.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libgexiv -> Libreville, Liberian, Liberia libgexiv2-devel.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libgexiv -> Libreville, Liberian, Liberia libgexiv2-devel.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libgexiv -> Libreville, Liberian, Liberia 5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 13 warnings.
NOTE : Line 36 is a comment.
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=599097
--- Comment #1 from Ankur Sinha sanjay.ankur@gmail.com 2010-06-02 13:13:17 EDT --- hi,
typo in description noted and changed
ligexiv2 -> libgexiv2.
regards, Ankur
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=599097
--- Comment #2 from Ankur Sinha sanjay.ankur@gmail.com 2010-06-03 03:50:10 EDT --- Ticket at the yorba trac regarding the configure script:
http://trac.yorba.org:8000/ticket/2001
Ankur
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=599097
--- Comment #3 from Ankur Sinha sanjay.ankur@gmail.com 2010-06-03 04:23:42 EDT --- hi,
updated:
* Thu Jun 03 2010 Ankur Sinha <ankursinha AT fedoraproject DOT org> - 0.0.90-2 - some fixes in spec - moved *.vapi to devel - removed INSTALL from doc - added comment to yorba ticket link - corrected typo in description
http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/libgexiv2/libgexiv2.spec
http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/libgexiv2/libgexiv2-0.0.90-2.fc13.src.rpm
mock build results at
http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/libgexiv2/
regards, Ankur
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=599097
Aleš Koval als@regnet.cz changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |als@regnet.cz
--- Comment #4 from Aleš Koval als@regnet.cz 2010-06-03 14:56:35 EDT --- Hi, provided source rpm cannot be build on x86_64 arch due this error:
error: File not found by glob: /home/als/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT libgexiv2-0.0.90-2.fc13.x86_64/usr/lib64/*.so.*
You using correct %{_libdir} macro in spec file in files section, but there is hardcoded $(DESTDIR)$(PREFIX)/lib path in source Makefile in install section.
Regards Als
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=599097
--- Comment #5 from Ankur Sinha sanjay.ankur@gmail.com 2010-06-03 16:01:03 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4)
Hi, provided source rpm cannot be build on x86_64 arch due this error:
error: File not found by glob: /home/als/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT libgexiv2-0.0.90-2.fc13.x86_64/usr/lib64/*.so.*
You using correct %{_libdir} macro in spec file in files section, but there is hardcoded $(DESTDIR)$(PREFIX)/lib path in source Makefile in install section.
Regards Als
hey,
I patched the Makefile
spec: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/libgexiv2/libgexiv2.spec srpm: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/libgexiv2/libgexiv2-0.0.90-3.fc13.src.rpm
rest of the mock logs : http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/libgexiv2/
regards, Ankur
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=599097
--- Comment #6 from Aleš Koval als@regnet.cz 2010-06-03 16:21:49 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5)
srpm: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/libgexiv2/libgexiv2-0.0.90-3.fc13.src.rpm
Well, this version now build correct. Good job man :)
Regards Als
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=599097
--- Comment #7 from Ankur Sinha sanjay.ankur@gmail.com 2010-06-03 23:46:00 EDT --- patch sent upstream as per guidelines:
http://trac.yorba.org:8000/ticket/2001#comment:7
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=599097
Martin Gieseking martin.gieseking@uos.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |martin.gieseking@uos.de
--- Comment #8 from Martin Gieseking martin.gieseking@uos.de 2010-06-04 15:17:03 EDT --- Hi Ankur, here are some more remarks about your spec file:
- add a short comment above Patch0 telling what the patch does
- you can simplify calling the configure configure script as follows: echo '%{configure}' | sed '/--program-prefix=/d' >configure.new sh configure.new This also fixes the rpmlint warning about a missing libdir specification
- it's not necessary to remove the empty files as they are not listed in %doc and thus not packaged
- drop the %doc files from the -devel package (the files should only be added once)
- %{_includedir}/* is a bit too generic. Replace it with %{_includedir}/gexiv2/
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=599097
Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jussi.lehtola@iki.fi
--- Comment #9 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi 2010-06-04 15:33:17 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8)
- %{_includedir}/* is a bit too generic. Replace it with %{_includedir}/gexiv2/
I would say the same thing about %{_libdir}/*.so and %{_libdir}/*.so.* since I'd guess there is only one or a couple of libraries that are installed, so I usually recommend filling in these in more precision, e.g. %{_libdir}/libfoo.so and %{_libdir}/libfoo.so.*
Also, I think -devel should Requires: vala for dir ownership, as there is a file put in %{_datadir}/vala/vapi/.
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=599097
--- Comment #10 from Ankur Sinha sanjay.ankur@gmail.com 2010-06-05 01:21:47 EDT --- (In reply to comment #9)
(In reply to comment #8)
- %{_includedir}/* is a bit too generic. Replace it with %{_includedir}/gexiv2/
I would say the same thing about %{_libdir}/*.so and %{_libdir}/*.so.* since I'd guess there is only one or a couple of libraries that are installed, so I usually recommend filling in these in more precision, e.g. %{_libdir}/libfoo.so and %{_libdir}/libfoo.so.*
Also, I think -devel should Requires: vala for dir ownership, as there is a file put in %{_datadir}/vala/vapi/.
(In reply to comment #8)
Hi Ankur, here are some more remarks about your spec file:
add a short comment above Patch0 telling what the patch does
you can simplify calling the configure configure script as follows: echo '%{configure}' | sed '/--program-prefix=/d' >configure.new sh configure.new This also fixes the rpmlint warning about a missing libdir specification
it's not necessary to remove the empty files as they are not listed in %doc
and thus not packaged
- drop the %doc files from the -devel package (the files should only be added
once)
- %{_includedir}/* is a bit too generic. Replace it with %{_includedir}/gexiv2/
hey,
I've fixed these (at least I think so)
* Sat Jun 05 2010 Ankur Sinha <ankursinha AT fedoraproject DOT org> - 0.0.90-4 - changed configure portion - added Requires: vala for devel - made the file section more precise - bugzilla #599097 - changed patch to include a default LIB setting
http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/libgexiv2/libgexiv2.spec
http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/libgexiv2/libgexiv2-0.0.90-4.fc13.src.rpm
rest of the mock build stuff at:
http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/libgexiv2/
regards, Ankur
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=599097
--- Comment #11 from Martin Gieseking martin.gieseking@uos.de 2010-06-05 02:23:16 EDT --- You can also remove the variable definitions (CFLAGS, CXXFLAGS, FFLAGS) from the %build section. They are part of the %configure macro. However, since I obviously was too tired yesterday, I gave you a wrong configure replacement (sorry for that!). The Makefile doesn't recognize the locally set variables. It should work with a %build section that looks like this:
echo '%{configure}' | sed '/--program-prefix=/d' >build.tmp echo 'make %{?_smp_mflags}' >>build.tmp sh build.tmp
Since there are no empty files in the buildroot, you should really remove the redundant for loop. :)
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=599097
--- Comment #12 from Ankur Sinha sanjay.ankur@gmail.com 2010-06-05 02:45:36 EDT --- (In reply to comment #11)
You can also remove the variable definitions (CFLAGS, CXXFLAGS, FFLAGS) from the %build section. They are part of the %configure macro. However, since I obviously was too tired yesterday, I gave you a wrong configure replacement (sorry for that!). The Makefile doesn't recognize the locally set variables. It should work with a %build section that looks like this:
echo '%{configure}' | sed '/--program-prefix=/d' >build.tmp echo 'make %{?_smp_mflags}' >>build.tmp sh build.tmp
Since there are no empty files in the buildroot, you should really remove the redundant for loop. :)
hey,
updated spec:
http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/libgexiv2/libgexiv2.spec
srpm:
http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/libgexiv2/libgexiv2-0.0.90-5.fc13.src.rpm
mock results:
http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/libgexiv2/
regards, Ankur
PS : I dont understand how including the make portion(the new hack) works any different from the earlier hack you had mentioned.
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=599097
--- Comment #13 from Martin Gieseking martin.gieseking@uos.de 2010-06-05 03:39:58 EDT --- (In reply to comment #12)
PS : I dont understand how including the make portion(the new hack) works any different from the earlier hack you had mentioned.
It has to do with the way the shell handles variables. Each shell gets its own environment so that variables defined there are usually local and unknown outside. Adding "export" makes a variable accessible in the current shell S and also in all its sub-shells, but after returning to the parent of S they are removed. So if I, for instance, define CFLAGS in a shell script "build.tmp" and use it in a spec file, CFLAGS is known inside the shell calling "build.tmp" but not in the parent (rpm) environment, i.e. all variable assignments are lost when returning to the parent (rpm) shell. Thus, the following "make" process doesn't know anything about the previously set CFLAGS variable. But when placing the make statement inside "build.tmp", the variable is still accessible. I hope that's understandable. :)
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=599097
--- Comment #14 from Martin Gieseking martin.gieseking@uos.de 2010-06-11 11:54:03 EDT --- A new version has been released upstream: http://yorba.org/download/gexiv2/0.0/unstable/
Would you like to update the package before the formal review?
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=599097
--- Comment #15 from Ankur Sinha sanjay.ankur@gmail.com 2010-06-11 14:19:28 EDT --- (In reply to comment #13)
(In reply to comment #12)
PS : I dont understand how including the make portion(the new hack) works any different from the earlier hack you had mentioned.
It has to do with the way the shell handles variables. Each shell gets its own environment so that variables defined there are usually local and unknown outside. Adding "export" makes a variable accessible in the current shell S and also in all its sub-shells, but after returning to the parent of S they are removed. So if I, for instance, define CFLAGS in a shell script "build.tmp" and use it in a spec file, CFLAGS is known inside the shell calling "build.tmp" but not in the parent (rpm) environment, i.e. all variable assignments are lost when returning to the parent (rpm) shell. Thus, the following "make" process doesn't know anything about the previously set CFLAGS variable. But when placing the make statement inside "build.tmp", the variable is still accessible. I hope that's understandable. :)
hey,
thanks, that does teach me a little more :)
(In reply to comment #14)
A new version has been released upstream: http://yorba.org/download/gexiv2/0.0/unstable/
Would you like to update the package before the formal review?
updated:
http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/libgexiv2/libgexiv2.spec
http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/libgexiv2/libgexiv2-0.0.91-1.fc13.src.rpm
mock results at
http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/libgexiv2/
regards, Ankur
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=599097
Martin Gieseking martin.gieseking@uos.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |martin.gieseking@uos.de Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #16 from Martin Gieseking martin.gieseking@uos.de 2010-06-13 14:18:03 EDT --- Here's the formal review. The package looks almost fine to me, except one remaining aspect: - replace %{_includedir}/gexiv2/* with %{_includedir}/gexiv2/ to make the package own the directory too (and not only the header files)
$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-13-x86_64/result/*.rpm libgexiv2.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Gexiv -> Ge xiv, Ge-xiv, Gelid libgexiv2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libgexiv -> Libreville, Liberian, Liberia libgexiv2.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Gexiv -> Ge xiv, Ge-xiv, Gelid libgexiv2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libgexiv -> Libreville, Liberian, Liberia libgexiv2-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libgexiv -> Libreville, Liberian, Liberia libgexiv2-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libgexiv -> Libreville, Liberian, Liberia libgexiv2-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libgexiv -> Libreville, Liberian, Liberia libgexiv2-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libgexiv -> Libreville, Liberian, Liberia libgexiv2-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.
The above spelling errors can be ignored.
--------------------------------- keys used in following checklist:
[+] 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. [+] 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. $ md5sum libgexiv2-0.0.91.tar.gz* 16b6252efabb196ae2bf799104caa0cc libgexiv2-0.0.91.tar.gz 16b6252efabb196ae2bf799104caa0cc libgexiv2-0.0.91.tar.gz.1
[+] 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, ... [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires. [.] 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. - directory %{_includedir}/gexiv2/ must be owned by the -devel package
[+] 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: Library files that end in .so (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, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. [.] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications ... [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot}. [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [+] 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.
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=599097
--- Comment #17 from Ankur Sinha sanjay.ankur@gmail.com 2010-06-14 11:55:01 EDT --- (In reply to comment #16) hey,
Thank you for reviewing this :)
Here's the formal review. The package looks almost fine to me, except one remaining aspect:
- replace %{_includedir}/gexiv2/* with %{_includedir}/gexiv2/ to make the package own the directory too (and not only the header files)
...... ....... [X] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. - directory %{_includedir}/gexiv2/ must be owned by the -devel package
Fixed it.
new srpm :
http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/libgexiv2/libgexiv2-0.0.91-2.fc13.src.rpm
new spec
http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/libgexiv2/libgexiv2.spec
rest of mock logs at
http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/libgexiv2/
regards, Ankur
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=599097
Martin Gieseking martin.gieseking@uos.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #18 from Martin Gieseking martin.gieseking@uos.de 2010-06-14 12:49:14 EDT --- (In reply to comment #17)
Thank you for reviewing this :)
You're welcome.
[X] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. - directory %{_includedir}/gexiv2/ must be owned by the -devel package
Fixed it.
OK, the package is ready now, and we can finish here. :)
---------------- 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=599097
Ankur Sinha sanjay.ankur@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #19 from Ankur Sinha sanjay.ankur@gmail.com 2010-06-14 13:06:00 EDT --- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: libgexiv2 Short Description: ligexiv2 is a GObject-based wrapper around the Exiv2 library Owners: ankursinha Branches: F-12 F-13 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=599097
--- Comment #20 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com 2010-06-20 22:14:42 EDT --- CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py).
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=599097
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-06-21 00:15:37 EDT --- libgexiv2-0.0.91-2.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libgexiv2-0.0.91-2.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=599097
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |ON_QA
--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-06-21 17:44:22 EDT --- libgexiv2-0.0.91-2.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 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 libgexiv2'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libgexiv2-0.0.91-2.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=599097
--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-08-08 06:26:37 EDT --- libgexiv2-0.1.90-2.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libgexiv2-0.1.90-2.fc14
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=599097
--- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-08-08 06:26:43 EDT --- libgexiv2-0.1.90-1.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libgexiv2-0.1.90-1.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=599097
--- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-08-09 21:31:05 EDT --- libgexiv2-0.1.90-2.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 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 libgexiv2'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libgexiv2-0.1.90-2.fc14
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=599097
--- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-08-10 17:43:36 EDT --- libgexiv2-0.1.90-1.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 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 libgexiv2'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libgexiv2-0.1.90-1.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=599097
--- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-08-24 09:27:33 EDT --- libgexiv2-0.2.0-1.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libgexiv2-0.2.0-1.fc14
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=599097
--- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-08-24 09:37:40 EDT --- libgexiv2-0.2.0-1.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libgexiv2-0.2.0-1.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=599097
--- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-09-02 00:00:06 EDT --- libgexiv2-0.2.0-1.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 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=599097
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |libgexiv2-0.2.0-1.fc14 Resolution| |ERRATA Last Closed| |2010-09-02 00:00:15
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=599097
Ankur Sinha sanjay.ankur@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|ERRATA |CURRENTRELEASE
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=599097
--- Comment #30 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-09-02 16:48:07 EDT --- libgexiv2-0.2.0-1.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=599097
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|libgexiv2-0.2.0-1.fc14 |libgexiv2-0.2.0-1.fc13 Resolution|CURRENTRELEASE |ERRATA
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla