[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 583731] man-pages-de has file conflicts with man-db
by Red Hat Bugzilla
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=583731
Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blocks| |611990(F14Alpha)
Flag| |needinfo?(mail(a)romal.de)
--- Comment #8 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> 2010-08-04 22:58:28 EDT ---
Putting this back on the F14alpha blocker since I don't fully
understand the alpha criteria on conflicts, since I was the one
who removed bug 620624. Feel free to drop it again if this
is not a F14 Alpha blocker. Guess it would be quicker
just to fix the package? :)
--
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.
13 years, 10 months
[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 619395] Review Request: mozc - Opensourced Google Japanese Input
by Red Hat Bugzilla
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=619395
--- Comment #4 from Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka(a)ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> 2010-08-04 15:49:12 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > First of all would you clarify the following?
> >
> > ./data/dictionary/README.txt
> > Would you check under what license the dictionaries in mozc are
> > actually licensed?
>
> Sure. will check it with upstream though, I don't see any issues combining
> ipadic's license with BSD.
Yes, the combination of BSD and mecab-ipadic is okay, I just want to
make it clarified what license mozc's license is under.
> > ./third_party/rx/v1_0rc2/README
> > - This is under ASL 2.0.
> > ! By the way, there are two third-party products included in mozc
> > tarball (gyp, rx). Generally using bundled libraries is discouraged
> > on Fedora and it is recommended to seperate such bundled libraries
> >
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Bundling_of_multiple_...
> > Would you create seperated review request for these (if these
> > are really needed)?
>
> I've submitted a package review for gyp though, there are no upstream for rx
> anymore. apparently it may be not supposed to be shipped live for library and a
> trivial code though, can't we just have a comment about the license for rx in
> the spec file?
gyp taken. I guess rx can be shipped in current style (however the license
tag of mozc needs fixing, after clarifying dictionary's license).
--
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.
13 years, 10 months
[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 619395] Review Request: mozc - Opensourced Google Japanese Input
by Red Hat Bugzilla
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=619395
--- Comment #3 from Akira TAGOH <tagoh(a)redhat.com> 2010-08-04 11:16:51 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> First of all would you clarify the following?
>
> ./data/dictionary/README.txt
> - Well, mozc says the overall license is BSD, however
> - this file (./data/dictionary/README.txt) says that
> the volaburaly set is taken from ipadic, and
> the license of ipadic is not the same as BSD.
> ! Fedora admits that the license of ipadic is free,
> however is different from BSD at least in that the
> compatibility with GPL is currently unclear:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing
>
> - Also some other words seems added to the dictionary in the
> tarball. Maybe newly added words are licensed under BSD,
> however it seems unclear to me.
>
> Would you check under what license the dictionaries in mozc are
> actually licensed?
Sure. will check it with upstream though, I don't see any issues combining
ipadic's license with BSD.
> ./third_party/rx/v1_0rc2/README
> - This is under ASL 2.0.
> ! By the way, there are two third-party products included in mozc
> tarball (gyp, rx). Generally using bundled libraries is discouraged
> on Fedora and it is recommended to seperate such bundled libraries
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Bundling_of_multiple_...
> Would you create seperated review request for these (if these
> are really needed)?
I've submitted a package review for gyp though, there are no upstream for rx
anymore. apparently it may be not supposed to be shipped live for library and a
trivial code though, can't we just have a comment about the license for rx in
the spec file?
--
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.
13 years, 10 months
[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 620636] New: throws error if language groups not present in yum group list
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: throws error if language groups not present in yum group list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=620636
Summary: throws error if language groups not present in yum
group list
Product: Fedora
Version: 13
Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: high
Priority: low
Component: system-config-language
AssignedTo: psatpute(a)redhat.com
ReportedBy: psatpute(a)redhat.com
QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: psatpute(a)redhat.com,
i18n-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, nkumar(a)redhat.com
Classification: Fedora
Target Release: ---
Description of problem:
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/usr/share/system-config-language/language_gui.py", line 175, in
okClicked
self.apply()
File "/usr/share/system-config-language/language_gui.py", line 265, in apply
if not install.is_group_installed(grpid, self.mainWindow):
File "/usr/share/system-config-language/gui_install.py", line 79, in
is_group_installed
raise yum.Errors.GroupsError, "No Group named %s exists" % grpid
yum.Errors.GroupsError: No Group named bosnian-support exists
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
system-config-language-1.3.4-5.fc13.noarch
How reproducible:
everytime
Steps to Reproduce:
1. try to install group which is not present in comps/yum grouplist from s-c-l
2.
3.
Actual results:
it is throwing exceptions
Expected results:
should bypass exception and install language
Additional info:
--
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.
13 years, 10 months
[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [eclipse-nls] Uploaded missing source file
by Sean Flanigan
commit 26060f759fb46caec0b2566b352fae7fd0c16bc9
Author: Sean Flanigan <sflaniga(a)redhat.com>
Date: Wed Aug 4 14:06:48 2010 +1000
Uploaded missing source file
.gitignore | 1 +
sources | 2 +-
2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore
index 4668c6c..05dcb63 100644
--- a/.gitignore
+++ b/.gitignore
@@ -1 +1,2 @@
BabelLanguagePack-3.5.0.v20100729072834.tar.bz2
+BabelLanguagePack-3.5.0.v20100731072648.tar.bz2
diff --git a/sources b/sources
index 4c2fa22..534cf47 100644
--- a/sources
+++ b/sources
@@ -1 +1 @@
-ee911967d366f7f6892b24271c03fa07 BabelLanguagePack-3.5.0.v20100729072834.tar.bz2
+68e2910c6afd12b89631dea24fa7fb0d BabelLanguagePack-3.5.0.v20100731072648.tar.bz2
13 years, 10 months