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=207571
Bug 207571 depends on bug 219777, which changed state.
Bug 219777 Summary: Have vim use hunspell and hunspell dicts directly
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=219777
What |Old Value |New Value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED
Resolution| |WONTFIX
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=331981
Bill Nottingham <notting(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jkeating(a)redhat.com
Component|general |distribution
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=222269
Jindrich Novy <jnovy(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED
Fixed In Version| |4.7.1-1.fc12
Resolution| |ERRATA
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226329
Milan Crha <mcrha(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |mcrha(a)redhat.com
--- Comment #5 from Milan Crha <mcrha(a)redhat.com> 2010-03-18 09:13:41 EDT ---
As of pycairo-1.8.6-2.1:
Is the
> BuildRequires: pkgconfig
necessary? I know it's used in a -devel package, but it's named there as
> Requires: pkgconfig
so it should build even without that BuildRequires, shouldn't it?
Apart of this the spec file looks good from my point of view.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226336
Milan Crha <mcrha(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |mcrha(a)redhat.com
--- Comment #2 from Milan Crha <mcrha(a)redhat.com> 2010-03-18 09:01:07 EDT ---
I'm seeing this on the pyorbit-2.24.0-5:
Requires: %{name} = %{version}
But:
> In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package
> using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
So is this one of the vast majority cases?
There's a .pc file, so the -devel package should Requires: pkgconfig
> Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for
> directory ownership and usability).
Otherwise looks good.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225832
--- Comment #5 from Milan Crha <mcrha(a)redhat.com> 2010-03-18 07:32:30 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> > %files -n gnome-python2-rsvg
> > %files -n gnome-python2-gnomedesktop
> > %files -n gnome-python2-gnomekeyring
> doesn't contains %defattr(...) line
Ouch, this might be fixed in gnome-python2-desktop-2.28.0-4, I guess. I
overlooked it.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225832
Milan Crha <mcrha(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |mcrha(a)redhat.com
--- Comment #4 from Milan Crha <mcrha(a)redhat.com> 2010-03-18 07:29:56 EDT ---
As some subpackages are LGPLv2 and some GPLv2, shouldn't the main package has
both of them?
> %files -n gnome-python2-rsvg
> %files -n gnome-python2-gnomedesktop
> %files -n gnome-python2-gnomekeyring
doesn't contains %defattr(...) line
> Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for
> directory ownership and usability)
There is one .pc file listed.
This seems to be all devel package, sort of, from my point of view, but as that
I guess it's ok for python to not name package as -devel (you know: 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).
Apart of the above I guess it's fine. If I'm wrong with anything, just tell me.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=186527
--- Comment #70 from Andrew Meredith <andrew(a)anvil.org> 2010-03-17 15:52:14 EDT ---
@Andrew McNabb: I chose 12 as it is before 13, which is where named sits in the
sequence. I was getting several service scripts freezing, the earliest of which
was named. I use LDAP as the core authority across this particular system, and
as it a small business style job, the LDAP server box is itself an ordinary
service machine, so it needs the same user accounts as all the others.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=186527
--- Comment #69 from Andrew McNabb <amcnabb(a)mcnabbs.org> 2010-03-17 15:03:12 EDT ---
Andrew Meredith, that's a great way to do the fix. Is there any particular
reason you picked it to start at 12 instead of 21? I'm not sure it really
matters either way, but I'm curious.
Is there any chance of moving the ldap server earlier in the boot order in
Fedora 13? Adding more users to nss_initgroups_ignoreusers just patches around
the problem temporarily. This problem has been happening for years, and it's
open in three different bugs (this one and bug #182464 and bug #502072).
There's a nice, quick, easy, and elegant fix (switching the boot order), and it
would be really nice to have it fixed once and for all.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.