https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846
Bug ID: 1173846 Summary: Review Request: GBall - The Console Ball and Racket Game Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mohammed_isam1984@yahoo.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects/gball.spec SRPM URL: http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects/gball-1.0-1.fc20... Description: GBall is a simple yet nice implementation of the well known ball and racket game. It is designed to run under the GNU/Linux console (including terminal emulators). The aim of the game is simple: control your racket and move it around to bounce the ball and hit all the bricks. If the ball hits a wall, it will bounce. If it fell down the screen without bouncing on the racket, you lose. The game includes 10 levels with an option to play levels randomly, and a highscore board.
Fedora Account System Username: mohammedisam
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846
Sinny Kumari ksinny@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ksinny@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Sinny Kumari ksinny@gmail.com --- This is unofficial package review -
Issues ------ * Use %make_install macro instead of make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package#.25install_secti...
* %license macro should be used to include License %license COPYING
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/Li...
Result of fedora-review tool output looks good and pasted below for reference.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: 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 is included in %doc. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: gball-1.0-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm gball-1.0-1.fc21.src.rpm gball.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US highscore -> high score, high-score, highs core gball.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US highscore -> high score, high-score, highs core 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Requires -------- gball (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh gnudos info libc.so.6()(64bit) libgnudos.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides -------- gball: gball gball(x86-64)
Source checksums ---------------- http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects/gball-1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 00cd806f65b301c481ae77a37a7c11e12176c495f5f4c9652c3f7dfe12f4ebe6 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 00cd806f65b301c481ae77a37a7c11e12176c495f5f4c9652c3f7dfe12f4ebe6
Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -n gball Buildroot used: fedora-21-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846
--- Comment #2 from Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) bugs.michael@gmx.net ---
Requires libgnudos.so.1()(64bit)
Requires: gnudos
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Explicit_Requires
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846
--- Comment #3 from Mohammed Isam mohammed_isam1984@yahoo.com --- (In reply to Sinny Kumari from comment #1)
This is unofficial package review -
Thanks :)
- Use %make_install macro instead of make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}
Fixed
- %license macro should be used to include License
Fixed
Rpmlint
Checking: gball-1.0-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm gball-1.0-1.fc21.src.rpm gball.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US highscore -> high score, high-score, highs core gball.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US highscore -> high score, high-score, highs core 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Fixed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846
--- Comment #4 from Mohammed Isam mohammed_isam1984@yahoo.com --- (In reply to Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) from comment #2)
Requires libgnudos.so.1()(64bit)
Requires: gnudos
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Explicit_Requires
I understand there is no need to explicitly specify the Requires, am I correct? I removed the Requires clause from the spec file.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846
--- Comment #5 from Mohammed Isam mohammed_isam1984@yahoo.com --- Spec URL: http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects/gball.spec SRPM URL: http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects/gball-1.1-1.fc21...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846
Raphael Groner projects.rg@smart.ms changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |projects.rg@smart.ms See Also| |https://bugzilla.redhat.com | |/show_bug.cgi?id=1215762
--- Comment #6 from Raphael Groner projects.rg@smart.ms --- Review swap with py4j (bug #1215762)?
Some informal hints to the spec file:
Group: Amusements/Games
Remove this line, it's deprecated since F17.
Requires(post): info Requires(preun): info
What's this for? Your info file should not harm if there's no info installed in the system, what I guess does not happen to often in practical usage. I do not know what install-info does special, maybe just copy the file in the right folder and reference in files section. Better remove those lines with Requires.
URL: http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects Source0: http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects/%%7Bname%7D-%%7B...
Maybe better: URL: http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects Source0: %{url}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
Please tell if you will fix the above issues, those are just SHOULD. Later I can do the official fedora-review run.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846
Raphael Groner projects.rg@smart.ms changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |projects.rg@smart.ms Summary|Review Request: GBall - The |Review Request: gball - The |Console Ball and Racket |Console Ball and Racket |Game |Game Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846
Raphael Groner projects.rg@smart.ms changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Raphael Groner projects.rg@smart.ms --- APPROVED
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v3 or later)". Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/builder /fedora-review/1173846-gball/licensecheck.txt [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Texinfo files are installed using install-info in %post and %preun if package has .info files. Note: Texinfo .info file(s) in gball [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 4 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: 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 is included in %doc. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [-]: 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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: gball-1.1-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm gball-1.1-1.fc23.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Requires -------- gball (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh info libc.so.6()(64bit) libgnudos.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides -------- gball: gball gball(x86-64)
Source checksums ---------------- http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects/gball-1.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 718994ff5973d900fccfae729d685a0ba617704e21dfe41b4a9559eafffe878b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 718994ff5973d900fccfae729d685a0ba617704e21dfe41b4a9559eafffe878b
Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -v -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -o=--yum --clean --init -b 1173846 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846
--- Comment #8 from Mohammed Isam mohammed_isam1984@yahoo.com --- (In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #6)
Group: Amusements/Games
Remove this line, it's deprecated since F17.
Removed.
Requires(post): info Requires(preun): info
What's this for? Your info file should not harm if there's no info installed in the system, what I guess does not happen to often in practical usage. I do not know what install-info does special, maybe just copy the file in the right folder and reference in files section. Better remove those lines with Requires.
I understand install-info is just keeping things tidy, exactly as you said. I added these according to the scriplets in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets. If it is not mandatory I can remove it though.
URL: http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects Source0: http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects/%%7Bname%7D-%%7B...
Maybe better: URL: http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects Source0: %{url}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
Fixed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846
--- Comment #9 from Mohammed Isam mohammed_isam1984@yahoo.com --- (In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #7)
APPROVED
Thank you very much :)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846
--- Comment #10 from Mohammed Isam mohammed_isam1984@yahoo.com --- Spec URL: http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects/gball.spec SRPM URL: http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects/gball-1.1-2.fc21...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846
Raphael Groner projects.rg@smart.ms changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- See Also|https://bugzilla.redhat.com | |/show_bug.cgi?id=1215762 |
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846
--- Comment #11 from Mohammed Isam mohammed_isam1984@yahoo.com --- What should I do regarding the review swap? I see your bug (#1215762) is already assigned?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846
Mohammed Isam mohammed_isam1984@yahoo.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #12 from Mohammed Isam mohammed_isam1984@yahoo.com --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: gball Short Description: The Console Ball and Racket Game Upstream URL: http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects Owners: mohammedisam Branches: f20 f21 f22 el6 epel7 InitialCC:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846
Raphael Groner projects.rg@smart.ms changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST
--- Comment #13 from Raphael Groner projects.rg@smart.ms --- (In reply to Mohammed Isam from comment #11)
What should I do regarding the review swap? I see your bug (#1215762) is already assigned?
Forget about it. But could you do another review? Trojita (E-Mail client based on Qt), if you may like: bug #1208582.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846
Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846
--- Comment #14 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846
--- Comment #15 from Mohammed Isam mohammed_isam1984@yahoo.com --- (In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #13)
Forget about it. But could you do another review? Trojita (E-Mail client based on Qt), if you may like: bug #1208582.
I would be happy to. Though I should say this will be my very first review, so I will probably ask more questions during the review if that is okay?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- gball-1.1-3.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gball-1.1-3.fc22
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- gball-1.1-3.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |gball-1.1-3.fc22 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2015-07-14 11:47:50
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- gball-1.1-3.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- gball-1.2-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 21. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-90bb10847b
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- gball-1.2-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-afbbcc162e
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- gball-1.2-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-d8e7ab3de3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846
--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- gball-1.2-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-e35b198da0
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |ON_QA Resolution|ERRATA |--- Keywords| |Reopened
--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- gball-1.2-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 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 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update gball' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-90bb10847b
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846
--- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- gball-1.2-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 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 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update gball' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-afbbcc162e
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846
--- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- gball-1.2-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 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=epel-testing update gball' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-e35b198da0
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846
--- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- gball-1.2-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 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 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update gball' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-d8e7ab3de3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846
--- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- gball-1.2-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed|2015-07-14 11:47:50 |2015-10-31 22:38:21
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846
--- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- gball-1.2-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846
--- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- gball-1.2-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846
--- Comment #30 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- gball-1.2-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla