https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295115
Bug ID: 1295115 Summary: Review Request: swift-lang - Swift Programming Language by Apple Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jeremy.fergason@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/swift-rpm/swift-lang.spec SRPM URL: https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/swift-rpm/swift-lang-2.2-0.1.snapshot2015... Description:
Hi, all! If someone could review the swift package I've put together for Fedora Extras I would really appreciate it.
Swift is a modern programming language that Apple recently released as open source. This is a package of the current pre-release of Swift 2.2. It produces 3 RPM's:
* swift-lang * swift-lang-docs * swift-lang-package-manager
Thanks for all your feedback.
URL for Swift: http://www.swift.org/ License: Apache 2.0 with Runtime Exception
Fedora Account System Username: jdfergason
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295115
jeremy.fergason@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
--- Comment #1 from jeremy.fergason@gmail.com --- Also, I am a new packager so I will need a sponsor. Thank you!
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=1295115
jeremy.fergason@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Version|rawhide |23
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295115
--- Comment #2 from jeremy.fergason@gmail.com --- Successful Koji Build of swift-lang: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12380144
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295115
--- Comment #3 from Upstream Release Monitoring upstream-release-monitoring@fedoraproject.org --- jdfergason's scratch build of swift-lang-2.2-0.1.snapshot20151231.fc23.src.rpm for epel7 failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12386680
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295115
--- Comment #4 from Upstream Release Monitoring upstream-release-monitoring@fedoraproject.org --- jdfergason's scratch build of swift-lang-2.2-0.1.snapshot20151231.fc23.src.rpm for epel7 failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12386874
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295115
--- Comment #5 from Upstream Release Monitoring upstream-release-monitoring@fedoraproject.org --- jdfergason's scratch build of swift-lang-2.2-0.1.snapshot20151231.fc23.src.rpm for f24 failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12386610
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295115
--- Comment #6 from Upstream Release Monitoring upstream-release-monitoring@fedoraproject.org --- jdfergason's scratch build of swift-lang-2.2-0.1.snapshot20151231.fc23.src.rpm for f24-llvm failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12386918
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295115
--- Comment #7 from Upstream Release Monitoring upstream-release-monitoring@fedoraproject.org --- jdfergason's scratch build of swift-lang-2.2-0.1.snapshot20151231.fc23.src.rpm for f22 failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12386556
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295115
Dave Johansen davejohansen@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |davejohansen@gmail.com
--- Comment #8 from Dave Johansen davejohansen@gmail.com --- Here's my initial feedback: - Use an ExclusiveArch instead of such a long list of ExcludeArch. - Use global instead of define ( https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25global_preferred_over... ) - Remove the defintion for _libdir and _lib64dir (should already be defined) - Is that Requires list really necessary? ( https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Explicit_Requires ) - Would be nice to get tests working on koji. Do they work in mock? If not, then I'm guessing that the BuildRequires list is missing something ( https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Using_Mock_to_test_package_builds ) - Are you hoping to target EL 5? rm/mkdir of %{buildroot} is done automatically in recent versions of rpmbuild (I believe starting with EL >= 6) - Setting %attr only required if supporting EL <= 5 - Use the license macro ( compatibility workaround for EPEL can be found at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging#The_.25license_tag ) - Use wildcards to reduce list in %files section - Can the .h and other such files be moved to a -devel package? - Use Python macros for paths ( https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros ) - Use %{_includedir} instead of hardcoded path to /usr/include - Don't use hard coded path to /usr/share/doc/* (%{_datarootdir} or maybe %doc)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295115
Christopher Meng i@cicku.me changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |i@cicku.me
--- Comment #9 from Christopher Meng i@cicku.me --- Please learn how to use RPM macros first, your spec is too complex. Meanwhile please rename package -docs to -doc.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295115
--- Comment #10 from jeremy.fergason@gmail.com --- I've cleaned up a lot of the comments from Dave Johansen in the spec file. Swift doesn't like to play well in the /usr/lib64 directory ... /usr/lib is hardcoded in a number of places. I'm looking at ways to fix this as %{_libdir} is %{prefix}/lib64 on multiline systems.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295115
--- Comment #11 from jeremy.fergason@gmail.com --- I have updated the SPEC file and SRPM:
Spec URL: https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/swift-rpm/swift-lang.spec SRPM URL: https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/swift-rpm/swift-lang-2.2-0.1.snapshot2015...
The one thing that I don't know how to do is deal with the /usr/lib vs /usr/lib64 issue. I just redefined the macro; is this the way to deal with that?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295115
--- Comment #12 from Dave Johansen davejohansen@gmail.com --- (In reply to jeremy.fergason from comment #11)
I have updated the SPEC file and SRPM:
Spec URL: https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/swift-rpm/swift-lang.spec SRPM URL: https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/swift-rpm/swift-lang-2.2-0.1. snapshot20151231.fc23.src.rpm
That was a big step in the right direction, but here's some more comments: - Release is usually just an integer (i.e. 1 instead of 0.1) and it's usually best to increment it with each change so that it's easier for reviewers to compare different versions - As Meng pointed out, the Source* tags should use macros so that only a single value has to be changed when a new release is made - Get rid of # in Source* tags and use original names in source .rpm - Are versions listed in BuildRequires "real" (i.e. listed in Swift documentation and/or the true minimum version required)? - All patches needs to have at least an issue opened upstream and documented in the .spec file what the expected resolution is ( https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_... ) - I don't believe the "cd .." is necessary at the end of %prep - Add version to changelog entries ( https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs )
The one thing that I don't know how to do is deal with the /usr/lib vs /usr/lib64 issue. I just redefined the macro; is this the way to deal with that?
Is this actually building Swift or just unpacking a pre-built binary?
If it's just a pre-built binary, then this package cannot be packaged for Fedora ( https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#No_inclusion_of_pre-buil... ).
If it's actually building Swift, then you should open a ticket upstream and get the issue resolved in their build system so it can play nice with Fedora.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295115
--- Comment #13 from Michael Schwendt bugs.michael@gmx.net ---
Release is usually just an integer (i.e. 1 instead of 0.1)
Generally, that's not true, since you seem to forget the pre-release guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packag...
And if this package really is a snapshot, there are specific guidelines for snapshots, too:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages
%setup -q -T -D -a 1 %setup -q -T -D -a 2 %setup -q -T -D -a 3 %setup -q -T -D -a 4 %setup -q -T -D -a 5 %setup -q -T -D -a 6 %setup -q -T -D -a 7 %setup -q -T -D -a 8 %setup -q -T -D -a 9 %setup -q -T -D -a 10
Isn't it possibly anymore to specify -a multiple times in a single %setup invocation?
%post -p /sbin/ldconfig
%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig
Why is ldconfig run for the base package, although the package does not store any libs in runtime linker's search path?
%files lldb %{_libdir}/liblldb.so*
This subpackage wants to run ldconfig in its scriptlets.
%{_libdir}/swift/pm/*
Lots of so-called "unowned directories" created by this package. Kindly review the following pages
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Owner... https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories
and carefully examine directory ownership of all [sub-]packages.
%doc %{_mandir}/man1/swift.1.gz %doc %{_datarootdir}/doc/swift/*
%_datarootdir/doc = %_datadir/doc = %_docdir
And both %_docdir as well as %_mandir is a path where files implicitly are marked as %doc, because it's in the %__docdir_path list. See: rpm -E %__docdir_path
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295115
--- Comment #14 from jeremy.fergason@gmail.com ---
Is this actually building Swift or just unpacking a pre-built binary?
The package is being built from source; not just unpacking a pre-build binary. The problem is that /usr/lib is hardcoded in a number of places throughout the build system. I have been going through and trying to clean that up and providing a patch to upstream.
Get rid of # in Source* tags and use original names in source .rpm
Since this is a snapshot from upstream not all repos required for building have tags yet. This was my way to work around conflicting filenames.
Release is usually just an integer (i.e. 1 instead of 0.1)
I thought this was the convention for snapshots. As @Michael Schwendt pointed out:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packag...
Are versions listed in BuildRequires "real" (i.e. listed in Swift documentation and/or the true minimum version required)?
Yes.
I'll take a look at the unowned directories and other comments and clean up. Thanks for all the feedback!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295115
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zbyszek@in.waw.pl
--- Comment #15 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl --- URLs should use https (not http) if possible. Both swift.org and github.com support https.
You should define a macro with the common parameters to build commands: %global buildcmd \ -swift/utils/build-script \ --assertions \ --no-swift-stdlib-assertions \ --llbuild --swiftpm \ --xctest ... \ --reconfigure
and then use it instead of the common part in %build, %check, %install.
%files lldb ... %{python2_sitelib}/readline.so
This looks very wrong. swift should be be installing a file with a name of an existing python module. It should also not be installing a binary file in a non-arched directory.
For the other .so files: usually the versioned libraries (*.so.*) are packaged in the library subpackage (swift-lang-lldb in this case), and the versionless .so link is packaged in the devel subpackage (swift-lang-lldb-devel) in this case.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295115
--- Comment #16 from Dave Johansen davejohansen@gmail.com --- (In reply to jeremy.fergason from comment #14)
Get rid of # in Source* tags and use original names in source .rpm
Since this is a snapshot from upstream not all repos required for building have tags yet. This was my way to work around conflicting filenames.
Could these tags be requested so that everything is uniform?
Release is usually just an integer (i.e. 1 instead of 0.1)
I thought this was the convention for snapshots. As @Michael Schwendt pointed out:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Pre- Release_packages
Sorry about that. I forgot about that policy.
I'll take a look at the unowned directories and other comments and clean up. Thanks for all the feedback!
%license is now defined in EPEL, so you can get rid of the compatibility definition that you added. https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel%40lists.fedoraproje...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295115
--- Comment #17 from Dave Johansen davejohansen@gmail.com --- Just as an FYI, llvm is moving to using cmake in rawhide (F24) and is now separate packages (see bug #1300945).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295115
--- Comment #18 from jeremy.fergason@gmail.com --- Thanks! I'm still trying to get the lib vs lib64 issue sorted with the swift developers.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295115
Dennis Chen barracks510@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |barracks510@gmail.com
--- Comment #19 from Dennis Chen barracks510@gmail.com --- You may want to look into what I did for Editorconfig to get their lib/lib64 working. Hopefully you find this useful. https://barracks510.fedorapeople.org/packaging/editorconfig-install.patch
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295115
Roman Tsisyk roman@tsisyk.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |roman@tsisyk.com
--- Comment #20 from Roman Tsisyk roman@tsisyk.com --- Any news? I'm interested in this package.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295115
--- Comment #21 from jeremy.fergason@gmail.com --- I believe that I have successfully integrated all the feedback received and the RPM now installs into the appropriate lib64 directory. It also builds in Koji, see: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14931923
Updated spec file: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/jdfergason/swift-rpm/master/SPECS/swift-la...
What are the next steps necessary to get this into EPEL?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295115
--- Comment #22 from Dave Johansen davejohansen@gmail.com --- The main thing is performing the actual review ( https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process ) and resolving any issues that come up.
Also, have you been sponsored as a packager?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295115
--- Comment #23 from Dennis Chen barracks510@gmail.com --- It seems like there's still a lot of excessive bundling going on. I'm under the impression that a lot of these tarballs can be and should be split into separate packages, each with their own package review. Also, conflicting with LLDB is not good.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295115
--- Comment #24 from jeremy.fergason@gmail.com --- @DaveJohansen No I have not been sponsored as a packager yet.
@DennisChen I agree. To some extent this is the way that the Swift development team views the world. The package can be split into 3 different packages but the main package will still require a lot of bundling.
Possible packages:
Swift Compiler / REPL - Requires Sources 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 11 Swift Pacakge Manager - Requires 5, 6 (depends on above) XCTest - Requires 8 (depends on Swift Compiler)
It would also be nice to have the standard library be separate from the compiler package / REPL to ease distributing software built with swift.
Regarding the LLDB conflict I agree that it is not good but I see no way around it as that is how Swift's REPL works. They have modified LLDB and it conflicts with the main package.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295115
--- Comment #25 from jeremy.fergason@gmail.com --- Updated SPEC to address unowned directories, remove swift package manager, and divide sub packages in a more sane way:
swiftlang (meta-package installs swiftlang-lib swiftlang-bin swiftlang-devel) swiftlang-lib - Runtime libraries swiftlang-bin - Compiler / REPL swiftlang-xctest - Runtime libraries for XCTest framework (included because it is required for testing the compiler) swiftlang-devel - Headers
New SPEC file: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/jdfergason/swift-rpm/master/SPECS/swiftlan...
Possible Todos:
* Add versioning to shared libraries * Confirm the subpackge naming convention ... specifically should a swiftlang-static be added for all the .a files * Determine if *.h files used by compiler need to be moved into -devel package or someother package. It seems to me that -devel should only include headers relevant to the standard library and Foundation. However, the headers for clang and lldb are required for the compiler to work.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295115
--- Comment #26 from jeremy.fergason@gmail.com --- I got the Todos added into the most recent version of the spec file. Swift is a complicated packaging scenario and I believe that it conforms to the Fedora Packaging Guidelines.
The one fly in the ointment is the conflict with LLDB. I see no good way around this. If we rename the swift version of lldb it will be confusing to users as all the swift documentation just says type lldb. If we don't rename it then there is a conflict with the lldb package.
At this point I need a sponsor and a review. I'm not sure how to go about getting that so until I hear otherwise the SPEC is ready to go.
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/jdfergason/swift-rpm/master/SPECS/swiftlan...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295115
--- Comment #27 from Dave Johansen davejohansen@gmail.com --- (In reply to jeremy.fergason from comment #26)
The one fly in the ointment is the conflict with LLDB. I see no good way around this. If we rename the swift version of lldb it will be confusing to users as all the swift documentation just says type lldb. If we don't rename it then there is a conflict with the lldb package.
My personal opinion is that having the "official" lldb binary left as is should take precendence over catering to Swift's documentation.
The Fedora policy seems to indicate the same general feeling: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts#Binary_Name_Conflicts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295115
--- Comment #28 from Fedora End Of Life jkurik@fedoraproject.org --- This message is a reminder that Fedora 23 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 23. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '23'.
Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version.
Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora 23 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above.
Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295115
Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ngompa13@gmail.com Version|23 |rawhide
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295115
Tim Hawkins tim.thawkins@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jeremy.fergason@gmail.com, | |tim.thawkins@gmail.com Flags| |needinfo?(jeremy.fergason@g | |mail.com)
--- Comment #29 from Tim Hawkins tim.thawkins@gmail.com --- (In reply to jeremy.fergason from comment #26)
I got the Todos added into the most recent version of the spec file. Swift is a complicated packaging scenario and I believe that it conforms to the Fedora Packaging Guidelines.
The one fly in the ointment is the conflict with LLDB. I see no good way around this. If we rename the swift version of lldb it will be confusing to users as all the swift documentation just says type lldb. If we don't rename it then there is a conflict with the lldb package.
At this point I need a sponsor and a review. I'm not sure how to go about getting that so until I hear otherwise the SPEC is ready to go.
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/jdfergason/swift-rpm/master/SPECS/ swiftlang.spec
I will give this a go on fedora 25 and see if your spec still works, we should change the version this bug relates to to f25.
I seem to have built up a community around a "hack" script i built, and i want to retire it if possible, and redirect it to more "official" distro support.
https://github.com/FedoraSwift/fedora-swift
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295115
--- Comment #30 from Tim Hawkins tim.thawkins@gmail.com --- (In reply to jeremy.fergason from comment #26)
I got the Todos added into the most recent version of the spec file. Swift is a complicated packaging scenario and I believe that it conforms to the Fedora Packaging Guidelines.
The one fly in the ointment is the conflict with LLDB. I see no good way around this. If we rename the swift version of lldb it will be confusing to users as all the swift documentation just says type lldb. If we don't rename it then there is a conflict with the lldb package.
At this point I need a sponsor and a review. I'm not sure how to go about getting that so until I hear otherwise the SPEC is ready to go.
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/jdfergason/swift-rpm/master/SPECS/ swiftlang.spec
@jeremy, do you have all the patchfiles that match your spec file? Im trying tro reproduce your package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295115
--- Comment #31 from Dave Johansen davejohansen@gmail.com --- (In reply to Tim Hawkins from comment #30)
@jeremy, do you have all the patchfiles that match your spec file? Im trying tro reproduce your package
It appears that they're available in the github repo that Jeremy referenced: https://github.com/jdfergason/swift-rpm/tree/master/SOURCES
Or the SRPM linked to in this review has all of the code and patches (see comment 11).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295115
Gilles Dubreuil gdubreui@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |gdubreui@redhat.com
--- Comment #32 from Gilles Dubreuil gdubreui@redhat.com --- A more recent and also *great* work is available with [1]
Using patch [2], I generated a Swift 3.1 RPM for Fedora 25. It provides REPL, LLDB, Package and Foundation:
------------------------------------------ $ swift --version Swift version 3.1 (swift-3.1-RELEASE) Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu ------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------ $ swift Welcome to Swift version 3.1 (swift-3.1-RELEASE). Type :help for assistance. 1> ------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------ $ lldb --version lldb version 4.0.0 Swift-3.1 (revision 6309a8a39f499549676a1ac889f01d04ac823d8f) ------------------------------------------
[1] https://github.com/corinnekrych/swift-rpm [2] https://github.com/corinnekrych/swift-rpm/pull/6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295115
Ron Olson tachoknight@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tachoknight@gmail.com
--- Comment #33 from Ron Olson tachoknight@gmail.com --- As an update, I have updated the scripts to build Swift 4 (waiting for Corinne to pull the request):
https://github.com/tachoknight/swift-rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295115
--- Comment #34 from Ron Olson tachoknight@gmail.com --- One thing that would presumably need to be worked out is that there are a bunch of pulls from Github that I presume would be frowned on in that it's not a properly self-contained project. Also Fedora does not provide libBlocksRuntime for some reason, so that is yet another explicit checkout and install that wouldn't pass muster from package reviewers.
(In reply to Ron Olson from comment #33)
As an update, I have updated the scripts to build Swift 4 (waiting for Corinne to pull the request):
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295115
Dave Johansen davejohansen@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |1362511
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1362511 [Bug 1362511] RFE: Build BlocksRuntime
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295115 Bug 1295115 depends on bug 1362511, which changed state.
Bug 1362511 Summary: RFE: Build BlocksRuntime https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1362511
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295115
Dennis Chen barracks510@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed| |2018-10-30 16:27:14
--- Comment #35 from Dennis Chen barracks510@gmail.com ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1536780 ***
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com -
Red Hat Bugzilla