https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2300 --- Comment #2 from Stou Sandalski <stou(a)icapsid.net&gt; 2012-05-29 08:28:36 CEST --- Created attachment 902 --> https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/attachment.cgi?id=902 Updated spec file An updated SPEC file which adds the GCC 4.7 patch as Patch6 so that FreeCAD can be built on Fedora 17. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2300 Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |leamas.alec(a)gmail.com Blocks|2 |3 AssignedTo|rpmfusion-package-review@rp |leamas.alec(a)gmail.com |mfusion.org | --- Comment #4 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-06-18 20:43:32 CEST --- I'll take this one. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2300 --- Comment #6 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-06-19 14:50:43 CEST --- Created attachment 913 --> https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/attachment.cgi?id=913 Review template, lot's of warnings -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2300 --- Comment #8 from Richard <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-06-19 15:20:35 CEST --- As a side note, one of the problems with freecad is that it installs everything into /usr/lib{,64} including the binaries, which is why I symlink them into /usr/bin. I actually had a patch to fix this but it was un-maintainable in the long run and at the time upstream wasn't interested in fixing it. I believe this has now been mostly fixed and should be corrected in the 0.13 release. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2300 --- Comment #10 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-06-19 18:22:25 CEST --- Still, just a glance... seems that package both provides and requires all these plugins. I'm not really happy with a package exporting a private library such as Point.so, the name is generic enough to cause problems as are many others. And if the package contains these plugins, what's the point requiring them? Thoughts? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2300 Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEW --- Comment #12 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-06-19 18:44:06 CEST --- (In reply to comment #11) [cut] Well, the review template have "requires and provides are sound...", it does happen. And many reviewers have the habit of listing Provides/Requires for this very reason, as do the current fedora-review tool. Yes, that's the way I guess. Note the discussion on filtering limitations, it's available from the 'invalid-soname' link above. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2300 --- Comment #14 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-06-19 19:49:50 CEST --- This is not a problem. I'll do a more complete review later -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2300 --- Comment #16 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-06-21 07:57:46 CEST --- OK, I understand... waiting for new links. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2300 --- Comment #18 from John Morris <john(a)zultron.com&gt; 2012-06-26 07:55:29 CEST --- Oh, a few more links from the freecad package to files I changed/added: http://www.zultron.com/static/2012/06/freecad/freecad.desktop http://www.zultron.com/static/2012/06/freecad/freecad-0.12-OpenCASCADE-op... http://www.zultron.com/static/2012/06/freecad/freecad-0.12-pycxx.patch -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2300 --- Comment #20 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-06-26 11:03:19 CEST --- Well, the situation is clear: pycxx should be unbundled. I havn't really come to the point looking for other bundled libraries, but at glance I do not find any. This also means that this request is blocked on https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835432. The 'locate pycxx' cmake patch: things would possibly become easier if you added a pkgconfig .pc file to pycxx. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2300 --- Comment #22 from Richard <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-06-26 16:51:27 CEST --- (In reply to comment #17) Thanks! I'll take a look. Whoops! Great! I originally wasn't worried about OCC because I didn't want to maintain the painful level of patches that had to be applied because upstream didn't accept them. This is essentially what OCE is doing for us anyway. No problem to include this though. Not sure. They're listed here: http://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/free-cad/index.php?title=CompileOnUnix But I never checked to see if they're used. Richard -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2300 --- Comment #24 from John Morris <john(a)zultron.com&gt; 2012-06-27 01:38:22 CEST --- Created attachment 921 --> https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/attachment.cgi?id=921 Email from author: suggestions for packaging Hi fellas, I'm attaching an email from the author. In summary, he discourages us from packaging PyCXX separately, and especially discourages my idea to pre-compile into arch-specific static libs. He points out pycvs, another precedent. I tracked down the original Fedora review request where this same issue was discussed: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428718#c12 Up to you to decide what to do. I'll update the Fedora python-pycxx ticket with this same information. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2300 Richard <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- See Also| |https://bugzilla.redhat.com | |/show_bug.cgi?id=834975 --- Comment #26 from Richard <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-06-27 15:02:41 CEST --- So we're not calling the bundled PyCXX a blocker? Works for me! As this package will be residing in RPM Fusion (at least until OCC/OCE changes it's license) there's no formal exception process. We can ask on the devel list but my vote is to follow the "Provides: bundled(python-pycxx)" until (if/when) PyCXX makes it in to Fedora. We still have the problem with zipios++ (added as see also bug) but that needs to be fixed there. If freecad gets approved I'll just hold off on builds until it's fixed. I'll provide new links soon. I'll change the default for PyCXX to use the bundled version by default for the time being. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2300 --- Comment #28 from Richard <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-06-27 15:15:28 CEST --- (In reply to comment #27) I haven't needed to use the procedure on Fedora as of yet, but what is the procedure on RPM Fusion? As far as I know (or I have been able to find though google) there isn't one. All I've seen is people getting a general consensus on the devel mailing list. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2300 --- Comment #29 from John Morris <john(a)zultron.com&gt; 2012-06-27 18:34:39 CEST --- Hi fellas, In case you decide to bundle pycxx separately, the specfile and rpm links I posted are updated. The specfile takes advantage of the pkg-config .pc file I added to the pycxx package. I'm ok whichever way y'all decide. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2300 Richard <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- See Also|https://bugzilla.redhat.com | |/show_bug.cgi?id=834975 | --- Comment #31 from Richard <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-06-28 21:37:34 CEST --- Well, I've gotten exactly 0 responses thus far about my exemption request so I'm going to assume that's a big fat "NO". Removing external bug link for zipios++ since that's been fixed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2300 --- Comment #33 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-06-29 09:57:58 CEST --- Hm... fast progress, indeed. Given what's happening at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835432, we'll most likely use that package. No bundling exception needed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2300 --- Comment #35 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-07-04 21:41:38 CEST --- Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== [-]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. My note: /usr/lib/freecad/lib/* are not development files. [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]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install if there is such a file. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [!]: 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "LGPL (v2 or later)", "GENERATED FILE", "*No copyright* UNKNOWN", "LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "UNKNOWN", "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "LGPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address) GENERATED FILE", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "*No copyright* LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "*No copyright* LGPL (v2 or later)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address) GENERATED FILE", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "*No copyright* LGPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "LGPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (v2 or later) GENERATED FILE", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address) GENERATED FILE", "*No copyright* GENERATED FILE", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address) GENERATED FILE" For detailed output of licensecheck see file: /home/mk/FedoraReview/src/freecad/licensecheck.txt [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package consistently uses macro (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named using only allowed ascii characters. [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. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [?]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. My note: hicolor-icons-theme? [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. ===== SHOULD items ===== [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [!]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [?]: 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. [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define. Note: %define plugins Complete Drawing... ===== EXTRA items ===== [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Issues ====== [!] Licensing. There are some v3 and LGPL v2.1 as well. Since this isn't a library, using LGPL isn't that useful. Maybe the simplest solution is to set license to GPLv3+, promoting all LGPL to GPL, and promoting GPL v2+ to GPLv3+ [!] License files, at least licensing.lib and License.txt is not in %doc. Please recheck this. [!] Shouldn't this package require hicolor-icons-theme?! [!] No blocker, but I'm uneasy with the manpage symlinking. Basically, you set up dangling symlinks, trusting rpmbuild to satisfy it by creating the gz files. But what if rpmbuild decides on another compressing scheme? I'd prefer to just copy the manpages or, better, to provide dummy "See instead" for the other pages. [!] No blocker either in case %global doesn't work in this case. But if possible %global should be used instead if %define [!] If possible, try to get rid of the unused-direct-shlib-dependency warnings from installed package. Is the Wl,as-needed really in effect? It's >1200 of these :) [!] Inform upstream about missing license files (GPLv2, GPLv3), bad FSF address and shared-lib-calls-exit' Rpmlint ------- Checking: freecad-0.12-6.fc17.src.rpm freecad-doc-0.12-6.fc17.noarch.rpm freecad-debuginfo-0.12-6.fc17.i686.rpm freecad-0.12-6.fc17.i686.rpm freecad.src: W: invalid-license LGPLv2+ with exception freecad-doc.noarch: W: invalid-license LGPLv2+ with exception freecad-debuginfo.i686: W: invalid-license LGPLv2+ with exception freecad.i686: W: invalid-license LGPLv2+ with exception freecad.i686: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib/freecad/lib/SketcherGui.so SketcherGui.so [ another irrelevant 37 invalid-soname for /usr/lib/freecad/lib/* removed ] freecad.i686: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/freecad/lib/libFreeCADBase.so exit(a)GLIBC_2.0 freecad.i686: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/freecad/lib/libFreeCADApp.so exit(a)GLIBC_2.0 freecad.i686: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/freecad/lib/libFreeCADGui.so exit(a)GLIBC_2.0 freecad.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/freecad/Mod/Draft/draftlibs/dxfColorMap.py 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 39 errors, 7 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint freecad freecad-doc freecad-debuginfo freecad.i686: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US freecad.i686: W: invalid-license LGPLv2+ with exception freecad.i686: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib/freecad/lib/SketcherGui.so SketcherGui.so freecad.i686: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib/freecad/lib/Robot.so Robot.so freecad.i686: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib/freecad/lib/Image.so /lib/libm.so.6 [ another ~1200 (sic!) unused-direct-shlib-dependency removed] freecad.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/freecad/Mod/Draft/draftlibs/dxfColorMap.py freecad-doc.noarch: W: invalid-license LGPLv2+ with exception freecad-debuginfo.i686: W: invalid-license LGPLv2+ with exception 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 39 errors, 1025 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- freecad-doc-0.12-6.fc17.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): freecad = 0.12-6.fc17 qt-assistant freecad-debuginfo-0.12-6.fc17.i686.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): freecad-0.12-6.fc17.i686.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /usr/bin/env libCoin.so.40 libDriver.so.5.1 libDriverDAT.so.5.1 libDriverSTL.so.5.1 libDriverUNV.so.5.1 libGL.so.1 libGLU.so.1 libICE.so.6 libQtCore.so.4 libQtGui.so.4 libQtNetwork.so.4 libQtOpenGL.so.4 libQtSvg.so.4 libQtWebKit.so.4 libQtXml.so.4 libQtXmlPatterns.so.4 libSM.so.6 libSMDS.so.5.1 libSMESH.so.5.1 libSMESHDS.so.5.1 libSoQt.so.20 libStdMeshers.so.5.1 libTKBO.so.1 libTKBRep.so.1 libTKBool.so.1 libTKCAF.so.1 libTKCDF.so.1 libTKFillet.so.1 libTKG2d.so.1 libTKG3d.so.1 libTKGeomAlgo.so.1 libTKGeomBase.so.1 libTKHLR.so.1 libTKIGES.so.1 libTKLCAF.so.1 libTKMath.so.1 libTKMesh.so.1 libTKOffset.so.1 libTKPrim.so.1 libTKSTEP.so.1 libTKSTEP209.so.1 libTKSTEPAttr.so.1 libTKSTEPBase.so.1 libTKSTL.so.1 libTKService.so.1 libTKShHealing.so.1 libTKTopAlgo.so.1 libTKV2d.so.1 libTKV3d.so.1 libTKXCAF.so.1 libTKXDEIGES.so.1 libTKXDESTEP.so.1 libTKXSBase.so.1 libTKernel.so.1 libX11.so.6 libXext.so.6 libXmu.so.6 libboost_filesystem-mt.so.1.48.0 libboost_program_options-mt.so.1.48.0 libboost_regex-mt.so.1.48.0 libboost_signals-mt.so.1.48.0 libboost_system-mt.so.1.48.0 libboost_thread-mt.so.1.48.0 libc.so.6 libdl.so.2 libfreeimageplus.so.3 libgcc_s.so.1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0) libm.so.6 libpthread.so.0 libpython2.7.so.1.0 librt.so.1 libspnav.so.0 libstdc++.so.6 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.1) libutil.so.1 libxerces-c-3.1.so libz.so.1 libzipios.so.0 python-pivy rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- freecad-doc-0.12-6.fc17.noarch.rpm: freecad-doc = 0.12-6.fc17 freecad-debuginfo-0.12-6.fc17.i686.rpm: freecad-debuginfo = 0.12-6.fc17 freecad-debuginfo(x86-32) = 0.12-6.fc17 freecad-0.12-6.fc17.i686.rpm: freecad = 0.12-6.fc17 freecad(x86-32) = 0.12-6.fc17 mimehandler(application/x-extension-fcstd) MD5-sum check ------------- /home/mk/FedoraReview/src/freecad/upstream/freecad-0.12.5284.tar.gz : MD5SUM this package : fcd91286c578a219491ffebb2111bddf MD5SUM upstream package : fcd91286c578a219491ffebb2111bddf Generated by fedora-review 0.2.0git (0be4d03) last change: 2012-07-03 Applied tests: Generic C/C++ Command line :./fedora-review -u https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2300 -m fedora-17-i386-rpmfusion_nonfree-testing External plugins: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2300 --- Comment #37 from Richard <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-07-05 01:54:02 CEST --- SPEC: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/34775202/freecad/freecad.spec SRPM: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/34775202/freecad/freecad-0.12-6.fc16.src.rpm All fixed! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2300 --- Comment #39 from John Morris <john(a)zultron.com&gt; 2012-07-05 05:34:07 CEST --- (In reply to comment #36) Erm, I'd like to say I did that on purpose, but it's just habit. I've never learned the documented difference between %define and %global, though reviewer have dinged me on that enough already. Please fix it, and I'm going to rtfm right now. ;) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2300 --- Comment #41 from Richard <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-07-05 15:01:51 CEST --- All fixed! Thanks for the review Alec and thanks to John for coming up with the filtering method! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2300 Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|33 | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.