https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1191498
Bug ID: 1191498 Summary: Review Request: safelease - legacy locking mechanism for VDSM Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ybronhei@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: http://bronhaim.fedorapeople.org/safelease.spec SRPM URL: http://bronhaim.fedorapeople.org/safelease-1.0-3.fc21.src.rpm
Safelease is a legacy cluster lock utility used by VDSM. It is based on the algorithm presented in the article "Light-Weight Leases for Storage-Centric Coordination" by G Chockler and D Malkhi.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1191498
Yaniv Bronhaim ybronhei@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) CC| |ykleinbe@redhat.com
--- Comment #1 from Yaniv Bronhaim ybronhei@redhat.com --- *** Bug 1131127 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1191498
Douglas Schilling Landgraf dougsland@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |dougsland@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1191498
Douglas Schilling Landgraf dougsland@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ybronhei@redhat.com Flags| |needinfo?(ybronhei@redhat.c | |om)
--- Comment #2 from Douglas Schilling Landgraf dougsland@redhat.com --- Hi Yaniv,
I see from fedora-review tool the following, could you please check:
Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/fedora/1191498-safelease/diff.txt See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL
Only in /home/fedora/1191498-safelease/srpm-unpacked/safelease-1.0.tar.gz-extract/safelease-1.0: aclocal.m4 Only in /home/fedora/1191498-safelease/srpm-unpacked/safelease-1.0.tar.gz-extract/safelease-1.0: compile Only in /home/fedora/1191498-safelease/srpm-unpacked/safelease-1.0.tar.gz-extract/safelease-1.0: config.h.in Only in /home/fedora/1191498-safelease/srpm-unpacked/safelease-1.0.tar.gz-extract/safelease-1.0: configure Only in /home/fedora/1191498-safelease/srpm-unpacked/safelease-1.0.tar.gz-extract/safelease-1.0: depcomp Only in /home/fedora/1191498-safelease/srpm-unpacked/safelease-1.0.tar.gz-extract/safelease-1.0: install-sh Only in /home/fedora/1191498-safelease/srpm-unpacked/safelease-1.0.tar.gz-extract/safelease-1.0: Makefile.in Only in /home/fedora/1191498-safelease/srpm-unpacked/safelease-1.0.tar.gz-extract/safelease-1.0: missing diff -U2 -r /home/fedora/1191498-safelease/upstream-unpacked/Source0/safelease-1.0/safelease.spec /home/fedora/1191498-safelease/srpm-unpacked/safelease-1.0.tar.gz-extract/safelease-1.0/safelease.spec --- /home/fedora/1191498-safelease/upstream-unpacked/Source0/safelease-1.0/safelease.spec 2014-12-15 16:53:04.000000000 -0200 +++ /home/fedora/1191498-safelease/srpm-unpacked/safelease-1.0.tar.gz-extract/safelease-1.0/safelease.spec 2015-02-11 09:41:26.000000000 -0200 @@ -21,4 +21,5 @@ %build ./autogen.sh + %configure make %{?_smp_mflags} @@ -36,5 +37,5 @@ - Use autotools to build the project - Dropped unused python_ver global -- Replaced the %libname macro with %name +- Replaced the %%libname macro with %%name - Included the target directory /usr/lib/safelease in the RPM file list - Included a description of the package Only in /home/fedora/1191498-safelease/srpm-unpacked/safelease-1.0.tar.gz-extract/safelease-1.0/src: Makefile.in diff -U2 -r /home/fedora/1191498-safelease/upstream-unpacked/Source0/safelease-1.0/src/safelease.c /home/fedora/1191498-safelease/srpm-unpacked/safelease-1.0.tar.gz-extract/safelease-1.0/src/safelease.c --- /home/fedora/1191498-safelease/upstream-unpacked/Source0/safelease-1.0/src/safelease.c 2014-12-15 16:53:04.000000000 -0200 +++ /home/fedora/1191498-safelease/srpm-unpacked/safelease-1.0.tar.gz-extract/safelease-1.0/src/safelease.c 2015-02-11 09:28:29.000000000 -0200 @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ /* - Copyright (C) 2014 Red Hat, Inc. + Copyright (C) 2008-2014 Red Hat, Inc.
This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify @@ -409,5 +409,5 @@ t[strlen(t)-1] = 0;
- printf("%s: ID %-*s TS %0*llx (%s, %d usec)\n", + printf("%s: ID %-*s TS %0*llx (%s, %d usec)\n", sameid(curr, freetag) ? "FREE" : "LOCKED", idlen, id, stamplen, ts, t, tusec);
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1191498
Yaniv Bronhaim ybronhei@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(ybronhei@redhat.c | |om) |
--- Comment #3 from Yaniv Bronhaim ybronhei@redhat.com --- err i didn't notice - the path in Source0 was still pointed to vitor's repo. I modified it now. Spec URL: http://bronhaim.fedorapeople.org/safelease.spec SRPM URL: http://bronhaim.fedorapeople.org/safelease-1.0-3.fc21.src.rpm
please re-visit.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1191498
Douglas Schilling Landgraf dougsland@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |
--- Comment #4 from Douglas Schilling Landgraf dougsland@redhat.com --- Hi Yaniv,
Keep increasing the release/changelog for every change in the spec. Please also check the output of fedora-review tool.
$ fedora-review -b 1191498
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
<snip>
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff).
<snip>
Rpmlint ------- Checking: safelease-1.0-3.fc20.x86_64.rpm safelease-1.0-3.fc20.src.rpm safelease.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.ovirt.org/Safelease timed out safelease.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.ovirt.org/Safelease timed out 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Thanks!
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1191498
--- Comment #5 from Yaniv Bronhaim ybronhei@redhat.com --- Hi, I checked the files and found that the tar.gz file which the spec refers to was out-of-date. I didn't change the spec or the src.rpm, only uploaded the right tar file to the specified path in spec - https://bronhaim.fedorapeople.org/%%7Bname%7D-%%7Bversion%7D.tar.gz
Please re-run
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1191498
Douglas Schilling Landgraf dougsland@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Douglas Schilling Landgraf dougsland@redhat.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [-]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [-]: 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 (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/1191498-safelease/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]: 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. [x]: 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. Note: Test run failed [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Test run failed [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Note: Test run failed [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.
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [x]: 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). [x]: 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: [-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Test run failed [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: safelease-1.0-3.fc20.x86_64.rpm safelease-1.0-3.fc20.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint safelease 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Requires -------- safelease (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides -------- safelease: safelease safelease(x86-64)
Source checksums ---------------- https://bronhaim.fedorapeople.org/safelease-1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6615d58bdaa8d7a54af806d6a3c2c763e303d5847abeb61901efc6dea1500e4e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6615d58bdaa8d7a54af806d6a3c2c763e303d5847abeb61901efc6dea1500e4e
Requires -------- safelease (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides -------- safelease: safelease safelease(x86-64)
Source checksums ---------------- https://bronhaim.fedorapeople.org/safelease-1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6615d58bdaa8d7a54af806d6a3c2c763e303d5847abeb61901efc6dea1500e4e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6615d58bdaa8d7a54af806d6a3c2c763e303d5847abeb61901efc6dea1500e4e
Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1191498 Buildroot used: fedora-20-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
APPROVED.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1191498
--- Comment #7 from Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) bugs.michael@gmx.net --- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Licensing -> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1191498
--- Comment #8 from Douglas Schilling Landgraf dougsland@redhat.com --- (In reply to Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) from comment #7)
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Licensing -> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
Thanks Michael. Yaniv, please include the change into the spec.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1191498
--- Comment #9 from Yaniv Bronhaim ybronhei@redhat.com --- safelease.spec includes "License: GPLv2+" statement in line 7
I don't see anything else required in term of "Licensing"
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1191498
--- Comment #10 from Douglas Schilling Landgraf dougsland@redhat.com --- (In reply to Yaniv Bronhaim from comment #9)
safelease.spec includes "License: GPLv2+" statement in line 7
I don't see anything else required in term of "Licensing"
It's about %license Yaniv.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1191498
Douglas Schilling Landgraf dougsland@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review+ |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1191498
--- Comment #11 from Yaniv Bronhaim ybronhei@redhat.com --- Added %license macro usage to spec:
Spec URL: http://bronhaim.fedorapeople.org/safelease.spec SRPM URL: http://bronhaim.fedorapeople.org/safelease-1.0-4.fc21.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1191498
Douglas Schilling Landgraf dougsland@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #12 from Douglas Schilling Landgraf dougsland@redhat.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [-]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [-]: 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 (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/1191498-safelease/licensecheck.txt [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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 must be included in %license. [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]: 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. [x]: 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 10240 bytes in 2 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]: 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]: 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). [x]: 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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: safelease-1.0-4.fc21.x86_64.rpm safelease-1.0-4.fc21.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
# rpmlint safelease 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Requires -------- safelease (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides -------- safelease: safelease safelease(x86-64)
Source checksums ---------------- https://bronhaim.fedorapeople.org/safelease-1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ad438ac3cc0e5dcaf140b6d2665da5a52ee70135d741dec226a5c3fa051b99a8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ad438ac3cc0e5dcaf140b6d2665da5a52ee70135d741dec226a5c3fa051b99a8
APPROVED.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1191498
--- Comment #13 from Yaniv Bronhaim ybronhei@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: safelease Short Description: Safelease is a legacy cluster lock utility used by VDSM. It is based on the algorithm presented in the article "Light-Weight Leases for Storage-Centric Coordination" by G Chockler and D Malkhi. Owners: bronhaim, dougsland, danken, ykaplan Branches: el7, f20, f21, f22 InitialCC: bronhaim@gmail.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1191498
Yaniv Bronhaim bronhaim@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |bronhaim@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-cvs?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1191498
Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) bugs.michael@gmx.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: safelease - |Review Request: safelease - |legacy locking mechanism |Legacy locking utility for |for VDSM |VDSM
--- Comment #14 from Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) bugs.michael@gmx.net --- "Short Description" is supposed to be the %summary, or else it will lead to rejecting the request: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_SCM_admin_requests#New_Packages
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: safelease Short Description: Legacy locking utility for VDSM Owners: bronhaim, dougsland, danken, ykaplan Branches: el7, f20, f21, f22 InitialCC: bronhaim@gmail.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1191498
--- Comment #15 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- ykaplan is not in the Packager group.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1191498
Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1191498
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1191498
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- safelease-1.0-4.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/safelease-1.0-4.el7
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1191498
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- safelease-1.0-4.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/safelease-1.0-4.fc20
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1191498
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- safelease-1.0-4.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/safelease-1.0-4.fc21
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1191498
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- safelease-1.0-4.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1191498
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- safelease-1.0-4.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1191498
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- safelease-1.0-4.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1191498
Douglas Schilling Landgraf dougsland@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed| |2016-07-07 23:09:37
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org