7:02 p.m.
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4041
Bug #: 4041
Summary: Review request: mendeleydesktop - rpm of Mendeley
Classification: Unclassified
Product: Package Reviews
Version: Current
Platform: All
OS/Version: GNU/Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P5
Component: Review Request
AssignedTo: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
ReportedBy: mark.harfouche(a)gmail.com
CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
This is a repackaged version of what is available
on the Mendeley website and attempts to make use
of system libraries instead of the ones packaged
with Mendeley.
srpm:
http://markharfouche.com/~makerpm/mendeleydesktop-1.16.1-2.fc23.src.rpm
Source rpmlint:
$ rpmlint /home/makerpm/rpmbuild/SRPMS/mendeleydesktop-1.16.1-2.fc23.src.rpm
mendeleydesktop.src: W: invalid-license Proprietary
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Binary rpmlint:
$ rpmlint
/var/lib/mock/fedora-23-x86_64/result/mendeleydesktop-1.16.1-2.fc23.x86_64.rpm
mendeleydesktop.x86_64: W: invalid-license Proprietary
mendeleydesktop.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libPDFNetC.so
libPDFNetC.so
mendeleydesktop.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libPDFNetC.so
exit(a)GLIBC_2.2.5
mendeleydesktop.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit
/usr/lib64/libMendeley.so.1.16.1 exit(a)GLIBC_2.2.5
mendeleydesktop.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mendeleydesktop
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings.
Justification for errors:
W: invalid-license: Proprietary license is why I need RPMFusion
E: invalid-soname can't change that. The source is a binary.
W: shared-lib-calls-exit: I don't know what this means. I don't think I can
change it
W: no-manual-page-for-binary: I don't think this is necessary. Also, this was a
binary software.
$ rpmlint
/var/lib/mock/fedora-23-x86_64/result/mendeleydesktop-devel-1.16.1-2.fc23.x86_64.rpm
mendeleydesktop-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-license Proprietary
mendeleydesktop-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
mendeleydesktop-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib <- I don't know what this means
W: no-documentation <- this is a devel package
My first RPMFusion package. I am seeking a sponsor.
--
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.
7:04 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 4041] Review request: mendeleydesktop - rpm of Mendeley
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4041
Mark Harfouche <mark.harfouche(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
URL| |https://github.com/hmaarrfk
| |/mendeley-rpm
Blocks| |2
--
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.
7:04 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 4041] Review request: mendeleydesktop - rpm of Mendeley
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4041
Mark Harfouche <mark.harfouche(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blocks| |30
--
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.
10:53 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 4041] Review request: mendeleydesktop - rpm of Mendeley
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4041
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik(a)greysector.net> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |dominik(a)greysector.net
--- Comment #1 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik(a)greysector.net>
2016-04-26 00:53:20 CEST ---
Nice to see your attempt here, Mark. However, I think that the ToS
(https://www.mendeley.com/terms/) prevent us from distributing modified
versions (sections 4.1.2 and 4.3.* are relevant here). Do you have written
permission from the authors? Coincidentally, I noticed you're using Fedora's
copr service to distribute your RPMs. Please stop doing so immediately. You
cannot use copr to distribute software not permissible in Fedora.
Having said that, I think your package could use some improvements. Please
compare mine:
https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/mendeleydesktop/
A couple of highlights:
1. please enumerate the bundled code
2. include all the licenses (of the bundled code, as well) in the License:
field
3. package the Libre/OpenOffice extension
--
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.
11:18 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 4041] Review request: mendeleydesktop - rpm of Mendeley
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4041
--- Comment #2 from Mark Harfouche <mark.harfouche(a)gmail.com> 2016-04-26 01:18:39
CEST ---
I removed my package from COPR.
Thank you for your notes.
I did get permission to redistribute, at least through their forum. Do we need
a more official email?
I included pdf printouts here:
https://github.com/hmaarrfk/mendeley-rpm/blob/master/Mendeley%20Permissio...
https://github.com/hmaarrfk/mendeley-rpm/blob/master/Mendeley%20Permissio...
I think you meant sections 2.x.x and not 4.x.x
Section 2.3.2 does mention copy/vary/modify, but I feel like 2.1.2 allows us to
do so.
1. Do you mean in a separate "Provides" section? It seems the RPM tools do that
automatically. Am I missing something?
2. Where did you get "LGPLv2+ and Mendeley and MIT and CC-BY-SA and (CPAL or
AGPLv3) and BSD"
3. Honestly, I never used LibreOffice. I guess you've done an awesome job at
that.
--
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.
11:36 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 4041] Review request: mendeleydesktop - rpm of Mendeley
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4041
--- Comment #3 from Mark Harfouche <mark.harfouche(a)gmail.com> 2016-04-26 01:36:14
CEST ---
1. Wow, OK I understand what you did. You basically went through every binary
that was inside mendeleydesktop and tried to find where it was from. You then
went on and tried to find the license yourself.
2. Same as above.
3. I would think about it, but I would rather just help you maintain your spec
file.
I think I would suggest that you add
rm -rf share/icons/hicolor/48x48
rm -rf share/icons/hicolor/64x64
in your spec file somewhere.
Their icons are lower resoluation have white instead of alpha, making them look
rather bad. I just let gnome scale down the icons until they fix it, which they
probably never will.
--
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.
7:01 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 4041] Review request: mendeleydesktop - rpm of Mendeley
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4041
--- Comment #4 from Mark Harfouche <mark.harfouche(a)gmail.com> 2016-05-02 21:01:50
CEST ---
Hi,
I wanted to summarize the previous posts:
1. Is the permission I got from message boards enough to distribute Mendeley in
RPMFusion? (See github pdfs)
2. Rathann, would you be OK if we modified your spec file since it is more
complete than the one I developed?
Thanks,
Mark
--
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.
7:30 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 4041] Review request: mendeleydesktop - rpm of Mendeley
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4041
--- Comment #5 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik(a)greysector.net>
2016-05-02 21:30:12 CEST ---
(In reply to comment #4)
1. Is the permission I got from message boards enough to distribute
Mendeley in
RPMFusion? (See github pdfs)
That would be my understanding, but I'm not a lawyer.
2. Rathann, would you be OK if we modified your spec file since it is
more
complete than the one I developed?
Yes, feel free to do so. I see you reported the icon issue at
http://support.mendeley.com/customer/portal/questions/1307459-badly-forma...
but to be honest, I did take a look at both 48x48 and 64x64 icons and can't see
anything wrong with them.
--
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.
6:19 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 4041] Review request: mendeleydesktop - rpm of Mendeley
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4041
--- Comment #6 from Mark Harfouche <mark.harfouche(a)gmail.com> 2016-05-03 20:19:35
CEST ---
Created attachment 1568
--> https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/attachment.cgi?id=1568
Mendeley on the dock keeping icons 64 and 48
--
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.
6:19 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 4041] Review request: mendeleydesktop - rpm of Mendeley
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4041
--- Comment #7 from Mark Harfouche <mark.harfouche(a)gmail.com> 2016-05-03 20:19:55
CEST ---
Created attachment 1569
--> https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/attachment.cgi?id=1569
Mendeley on the dock removing icons 64 and 48
--
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.
6:21 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 4041] Review request: mendeleydesktop - rpm of Mendeley
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4041
--- Comment #8 from Mark Harfouche <mark.harfouche(a)gmail.com> 2016-05-03 20:21:06
CEST ---
Created attachment 1570
--> https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/attachment.cgi?id=1570
Mendeley icons 128, 64 and 48 side by side for comparison
Notice how the 128 has a black shadow, while the 64 has a white opaque color
and 48 has some alpha to it.
Honestly, the inconsistency makes me just keep the 128 and let gnome scale it
down to whatever it wants to use.
--
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.
6:23 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 4041] Review request: mendeleydesktop - rpm of Mendeley
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4041
--- Comment #9 from Mark Harfouche <mark.harfouche(a)gmail.com> 2016-05-03 20:23:24
CEST ---
I added screenshots showing the problem. You can see that mendeley looks to
have a white background. While it is not a horrendous mistake to have a white
background, it is rather inconsistent and looks pretty ugly. The corners are
not fully white and I find that the 128 pixel icon scaled down looks much
better.
--
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.
7:33 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 4041] Review request: mendeleydesktop - rpm of Mendeley
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4041
--- Comment #10 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik(a)greysector.net>
2016-05-03 21:33:02 CEST ---
I see it now, thanks. Maybe adding these screenshots (especially the one from
the dock with original 48px and 64px icons present) will make upstream
understand your point.
--
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.
10:39 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 4041] Review request: mendeleydesktop - rpm of Mendeley
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4041
--- Comment #11 from Mark Harfouche <mark.harfouche(a)gmail.com> 2016-05-04 00:39:49
CEST ---
Ok Mendeley's website is being problematic with me.
I can't even open links in chrome, nor can I post something to
feedback.mendeley.com
I'm trying to suggest the following feature in Mendeley, but it isn't working:
For documentation purposes, (somebody can probably just copy paste this in)
Title: Fix linux icons for launcher
Body:
The 64x64 and 48x48 icons for linux have a white shadow instead of a black
shadow. If you don't delete them, they make the icons look ungly and
inconsistent. Deleting them forces your desktop environment to fallback on the
128x128 icon and scale it down.
With 64 and 48 icons:
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/attachment.cgi?id=1568
without 64 and 48 icons
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/attachment.cgi?id=1569
128 (top), 64(mid), and 48(bottom) icons for comparison
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/attachment.cgi?id=1570
You can see the iconsistency in the shadow. 128 uses a black+alpha shadow. 64
uses an opaque white shadow. 48 uses a white+alpha shadow. I think the 128 is
the correct one.
This is a really easy fix.
You could recreate the 64 and 48 icons by downscaling the current 128 icon. Or
you can just delete them.
--
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.
10:40 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 4041] Review request: mendeleydesktop - rpm of Mendeley
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4041
--- Comment #12 from Mark Harfouche <mark.harfouche(a)gmail.com> 2016-05-04 00:40:57
CEST ---
In the meantime, it is probably worth upvoting this bug:
https://feedback.mendeley.com/forums/4941-general/suggestions/483646-prov...
--
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.
4:18 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 4041] Review request: mendeleydesktop - rpm of Mendeley
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4041
--- Comment #14 from Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Mark Harfouche from comment #13)
Reviving this bug because I think I addressed the previous issues.
Thanks
Dominik.
...
This is my first RPM Fusion Package. I am seeking a sponsor.
Rathann can sponsor you.
You will likely need this for a proprietary software.
%global debug_package %{nil}
%global __strip /bin/true
Fedora default to i686 nowadays (-march), so if this binary is really built for
i486, it could lead to issue. Anyone tested it there ? If it doesn't work one
could also drop 32bit support.
I would prefer to use i686 even , as nobody knowns how dnf repo would handle
such i486 package which was not anywhere common to use on fedora land. (we used
i386, i586 or i686 for x86 32bit).
Anyway it's a minor issue as soon as it works.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
5:06 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 4041] Review request: mendeleydesktop - rpm of Mendeley
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4041
--- Comment #15 from Mark Harfouche <mark.harfouche(a)gmail.com> ---
Hi Nicolas
Thanks for replying.
(In reply to Nicolas Chauvet from comment #14)
> This is my first RPM Fusion Package. I am seeking a sponsor.
Rathann can sponsor you.
Thanks
You will likely need this for a proprietary software.
%global debug_package %{nil}
%global __strip /bin/true
https://github.com/hmaarrfk/mendeley-rpm/blob/master/mendeleydesktop.spec...
Fedora default to i686 nowadays (-march), so if this binary is really
built
for i486, it could lead to issue. Anyone tested it there ? If it doesn't
work one could also drop 32bit support.
Hoenstly, I don't own a 32bit computer
anymore. I think it is i486 because the
source for the binary has i486 in there.
It downloads as mendeleydesktop-1.17.10-linux-i486.tar.bz2
Also, adding the lines for i486 seems like work I wouldn't have done if the
default compilation worked.
If you want, I could install a VM and test it, but I have a feeling we have all
of 0 requests for a 32bit version.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
7:28 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 4041] Review request: mendeleydesktop - rpm of Mendeley
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4041
--- Comment #16 from Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Mark Harfouche from comment #15)
...
> Fedora default to i686 nowadays (-march), so if this binary is
really built
> for i486, it could lead to issue. Anyone tested it there ? If it doesn't
> work one could also drop 32bit support.
Hoenstly, I don't own a 32bit computer anymore. I think it is i486 because
Then
maybe you can drop the i486 package and only package the x86_64 as
ExclusiveArch: x86_64.
If any end-user would need the 32bit support, then they can contribute the
packaging change.
Anyway, both options are possible.
Please try to use the %global defines on the top of the spec file (they have
been added twice).
libMendeley.so is packaged in a -devel sub-package, but there is no header. Are
you sure this symlink to the library isn't used at runtime ?
libPDFNetC is a library from another project. If you are using the pre-built
version from Mendeley, it will conflicts if both packages are installed.
https://github.com/PDFTron/PDFNetWrappers
Instead you need to either:
- Package libPDFNetC (in fedora) and use the version built from source.
- Use a dedicated path, not registered to the system linker, so Mendeley can
find it's libraries. (and add something like /usr/lib64/Mendeley to
LD_LIBRARY_PATH).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
10:54 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 4041] Review request: mendeleydesktop - rpm of Mendeley
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4041
--- Comment #17 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik(a)greysector.net>
---
(In reply to Nicolas Chauvet from comment #16)
[...]
Then maybe you can drop the i486 package and only package the x86_64
as
ExclusiveArch: x86_64.
If any end-user would need the 32bit support, then they can contribute the
packaging change.
Anyway, both options are possible.
I agree it probably doesn't make sense to ship the 32bit x86 version unless
there's demand for it.
Please try to use the %global defines on the top of the spec file
(they have
been added twice).
libMendeley.so is packaged in a -devel sub-package, but there is no header.
Are you sure this symlink to the library isn't used at runtime ?
There's no need for libMendeley.so at all. Only the versioned file and symlink
are needed.
libPDFNetC is a library from another project. If you are using the
pre-built
version from Mendeley, it will conflicts if both packages are installed.
https://github.com/PDFTron/PDFNetWrappers
That contains only wrappers for PHP, Python and Ruby. The PDFNetC is still
closed source: https://www.pdftron.com/pdfnet/downloads.html . The latest
version (6.7.1) still bundles stuff like openssl-1.0.1c, libpng-1.6.12 and
zlib-1.2.7.
I actually tried dropping the latest upstream version in place of the one
bundled with MendeleyDesktop and it crashes on some PDFs I tried to import.
Instead you need to either:
- Package libPDFNetC (in fedora) and use the version built from source.
Impossible, sadly.
- Use a dedicated path, not registered to the system linker, so
Mendeley can
find it's libraries. (and add something like /usr/lib64/Mendeley to
LD_LIBRARY_PATH).
That'd be one option, as long as it's not added to the global LD_LIBRARY_PATH
if you want to go all the way. However, in all likelihood, nothing else will
ship libPDFNetC, so I'm not sure it's worth the trouble.
You can find my latest spec+patch here:
https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/nosrc/mendeleydesktop/
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
10:58 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 4041] Review request: mendeleydesktop - rpm of Mendeley
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4041
--- Comment #18 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik(a)greysector.net>
---
(In reply to Nicolas Chauvet from comment #14)
(In reply to Mark Harfouche from comment #13)
> Reviving this bug because I think I addressed the previous issues. Thanks
> Dominik.
...
> This is my first RPM Fusion Package. I am seeking a sponsor.
Rathann can sponsor you.
I could, but I'd like to see some (informal) package reviews by Mark first.
You will likely need this for a proprietary software.
%global debug_package %{nil}
Just the above is enough.
%global __strip /bin/true
This is not necessary.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
5:23 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 4041] Review request: mendeleydesktop - rpm of Mendeley
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4041
--- Comment #19 from Mark Harfouche <mark.harfouche(a)gmail.com> ---
Sorry, the lastest version is untested. Don't have access to Fedora at the
moment.
(In reply to Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski from comment #18)
(In reply to Nicolas Chauvet from comment #14)
> (In reply to Mark Harfouche from comment #13)
> > Reviving this bug because I think I addressed the previous issues. Thanks
> > Dominik.
> ...
> > This is my first RPM Fusion Package. I am seeking a sponsor.
> Rathann can sponsor you.
I could, but I'd like to see some (informal) package reviews by Mark first.
Ok, I'll get on the mailing list. I'll likely be super busy before Sept 6th. So
there will be a delay.
(In reply to Nicolas Chauvet from comment #16)
(In reply to Mark Harfouche from comment #15)
...
> > Fedora default to i686 nowadays (-march), so if this binary is really built
> > for i486, it could lead to issue. Anyone tested it there ? If it doesn't
> > work one could also drop 32bit support.
> Hoenstly, I don't own a 32bit computer anymore. I think it is i486 because
Then maybe you can drop the i486 package and only package the x86_64 as
ExclusiveArch: x86_64.
If any end-user would need the 32bit support, then they can contribute the
packaging change.
Anyway, both options are possible.
32 bit support dropped.
Please try to use the %global defines on the top of the spec file
(they have
been added twice).
Done
libMendeley.so is packaged in a -devel sub-package, but there is no
header.
Are you sure this symlink to the library isn't used at runtime ?
-devel removed
libPDFNetC is a library from another project. If you are using the
pre-built
version from Mendeley, it will conflicts if both packages are installed.
https://github.com/PDFTron/PDFNetWrappers
Instead you need to either:
- Package libPDFNetC (in fedora) and use the version built from source.
- Use a dedicated path, not registered to the system linker, so Mendeley can
find it's libraries. (and add something like /usr/lib64/Mendeley to
LD_LIBRARY_PATH).
I think we can put this in libexec right?
I'll try to test things on my Fedora computer this weekend.
(In reply to Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski from comment #17)
You can find my latest spec+patch here:
https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/nosrc/mendeleydesktop/
Thanks! Found some missing
bundled libraries. You are very thorough.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
2:30 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 4041] Review request: mendeleydesktop - rpm of Mendeley
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4041
Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
namespace| |nonfree
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
2032
days inactive
3172
days old
rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
58 comments
1 participants
participants (1)
-
RPM Fusion Bugzilla