https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294523
Bug ID: 1294523 Summary: Review Request: purple-skypeweb - Adds support for Skype to libpurple-based clients Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: vitaly@easycoding.org QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/xvitaly/purple-skypeweb/master/purple-skyp...
SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/xvitaly/purple-skypeweb/fedo...
Description: Adds support for Skype to Pidgin, Adium, Finch and other libpurple based messengers.
Fedora Account System Username: xvitaly
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294523
Vitaly Zaitsev vitaly@easycoding.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
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=1294523
Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |negativo17@gmail.com Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |negativo17@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com --- No longer blocking FE-NEEDSPONSOR. I will sponsor Vitaly.
Please remove this lines, they are not needed:
# generating empty configure script echo '#!/bin/bash' > configure chmod +x configure
%configure
It is not mandatory to have a configure script. You can use the following to pass correct CFLAGS when building:
export CFLAGS="%{optflags}" %make_build
A personal request; can you please add these two lines to the "purple-skypeweb" pacakge?
Provides: skype4pidgin = %{version}-%{release} Obsoletes: skype4pidgin < %{version}-%{release}
I've been packaging all skype4pidgin plugins for years (including libskypeweb) until now, where skypeweb is mature enough. I would like to make the transition transparent to the official Fedora packages for my users:
http://negativo17.org/skype-and-skype-pidgin-plugin/
This can be removed in a few months.
Please provide again the "Spec URL" and "SRPM URL" lines with the latest changes, fedora-review needs to have them when parsing packages/spec files.
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=1294523
--- Comment #2 from Vitaly Zaitsev vitaly@easycoding.org ---
Please remove this lines, they are not needed:
Removed.
A personal request; can you please add these two lines to the "purple-skypeweb" pacakge?
Added.
Please provide again the "Spec URL" and "SRPM URL" lines with the latest changes, fedora-review needs to have them when parsing packages/spec files.
SPEC: https://github.com/xvitaly/purple-skypeweb/raw/master/purple-skypeweb.spec
SRPM: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/xvitaly/purple-skypeweb/fedo...
rpmlint check result: http://paste.fedoraproject.org/378023/74464314/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294523
--- Comment #3 from Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/slaanesh/Downloads/1294523-purple-skypeweb/diff.txt See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: These BR are not needed: gcc See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "*No copyright* GPL (v3 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 18 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/slaanesh/Downloads/1294523-purple- skypeweb/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/pixmaps/pidgin/emotes/skype [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. [x]: 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. [-]: 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 30720 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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 %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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]: Dist tag is present. [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 does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [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: [-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in pidgin- skypeweb , purple-skypeweb-debuginfo [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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]: 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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: purple-skypeweb-1.1-6.20160510giteb0b500.fc23.x86_64.rpm pidgin-skypeweb-1.1-6.20160510giteb0b500.fc23.noarch.rpm purple-skypeweb-debuginfo-1.1-6.20160510giteb0b500.fc23.x86_64.rpm purple-skypeweb-1.1-6.20160510giteb0b500.fc23.src.rpm purple-skypeweb.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libpurple -> lib purple, lib-purple, purple pidgin-skypeweb.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US inplemented -> implemented, supplemented, complemented pidgin-skypeweb.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libskypeweb pidgin-skypeweb.noarch: W: no-documentation purple-skypeweb.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libpurple -> lib purple, lib-purple, purple 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: purple-skypeweb-debuginfo-1.1-6.20160510giteb0b500.fc23.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory pidgin-skypeweb.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US inplemented -> implemented, supplemented, complemented pidgin-skypeweb.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libskypeweb pidgin-skypeweb.noarch: W: no-documentation purple-skypeweb.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libpurple -> lib purple, lib-purple, purple 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Requires -------- purple-skypeweb-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
pidgin-skypeweb (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): pidgin purple-skypeweb
purple-skypeweb (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libjson-glib-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpurple.so.0()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides -------- purple-skypeweb-debuginfo: purple-skypeweb-debuginfo purple-skypeweb-debuginfo(x86-64)
pidgin-skypeweb: pidgin-skypeweb
purple-skypeweb: libskypeweb.so()(64bit) purple-skypeweb purple-skypeweb(x86-64) skype4pidgin
Unversioned so-files -------------------- purple-skypeweb: /usr/lib64/purple-2/libskypeweb.so
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/EionRobb/skype4pidgin/archive/eb0b5000c56c9c264375ab2334c... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : fa04af47d80c9ac82ede905b6a103dcbf48e0e707c5b5d7111f00e0897a49705 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d96bccd0e2c56acf347ceac7b89d05cea2993505599b3fe915789a23a116e604 diff -r also reports differences
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1294523 Buildroot used: fedora-23-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294523
--- Comment #4 from Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com ---
- Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/slaanesh/Downloads/1294523-purple-skypeweb/diff.txt See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL
This is ok, the tarball is renamed according to packaging guidelines.
- All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: These BR are not needed: gcc See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2
This is ok as no longer true, BR can now be excplicitly required.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "*No copyright* GPL (v3 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 18 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/slaanesh/Downloads/1294523-purple- skypeweb/licensecheck.txt
This is ok, but please ask upstream to add all proper headers. Otherwise, since this is a subset of the whole (obsolete) skype4pidgin tarball, just package in the tarball only the required folders. You can use this guideline if you want to proceed that way:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#When_Upstream_uses_Prohibi...
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/pixmaps/pidgin/emotes/skype
Just remove the "theme" at the end of this line in the files section:
%{_datadir}/pixmaps/pidgin/emotes/skype/theme
[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
Please add some notes to the patch. I don't see why the code in the patch should be removed, if there is an explanation for it, please add it to the SPEC file.
Also, please remove the "%if 0%{?fedora}/%endif" part around Patch0. If I'm downloading the source rpm for some rebuild on (whatever) unreleased distribution (let's say a beta RHEL that has everything included) I won't get the patch file from the Koji build, and I would need to download it from the SCM.
It's perfectly acceptable to have patches shipped and just applied conditionally.
pidgin-skypeweb.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US inplemented -> implemented, supplemented, complemented
There's a typo in the comment, 's/inplemented/implemented/g'.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294523
--- Comment #6 from Vitaly Zaitsev vitaly@easycoding.org ---
This is ok, but please ask upstream to add all proper headers. Otherwise, since this is a subset of the whole (obsolete) skype4pidgin tarball, just package in the tarball only the required folders. You can use this guideline if you want to proceed that way:
Yes, I'll add script which will repackage tarball.
Just remove the "theme" at the end of this line in the files section:
Done.
Please add some notes to the patch. I don't see why the code in the patch should be removed, if there is an explanation for it, please add it to the SPEC file.
This patch is no longer needed.
There's a typo in the comment, 's/inplemented/implemented/g'.
Fixed. Thanks.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294523
--- Comment #7 from Vitaly Zaitsev vitaly@easycoding.org --- New SRPM with latest SPEC and repackaged tarball: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/xvitaly/purple-skypeweb/fedo...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294523
--- Comment #8 from Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com --- Hi Vitaly, this does not really work, as the various tools will complain that the tarball specified in the URL of the spec file does not match the checksum of the tarball that is actually shipped in the src.rpm; prompting you to do something because the tarball has been tampered with.
I would personally do something like that:
1- Change source0 to read the following:
Source0: %{name}-%{shortcommit0}.tar.xz
2- Adjust your script to do the checkout and repack as follows (this is an example):
#!/bin/sh
TARBALL=purple-skypeweb
git clone -q https://github.com/EionRobb/skype4pidgin.git cd skype4pidgin COMMIT=$(git log -n 1 --format=%H) SHORTCOMMIT=${COMMIT:0:7} mv skypeweb ../$TARBALL-$COMMIT cd ..
tar -cJf $TARBALL-$SHORTCOMMIT.tar.xz $TARBALL-$COMMIT rm -fr skype4pidgin
echo commit0 $COMMIT echo Source0 $TARBALL-$SHORTCOMMIT.tar.xz
When running, you will get this output, so you can paste the commit id directly in the spec file:
$ ./purple-skypeweb-tarball.sh commit0 eb0b5000c56c9c264375ab2334c926c9715ee3d0 Source0 purple-skypeweb-eb0b500.tar.xz
This way, the Source0 is only checked locally and you won't have hash mismatches, you have a consistent SPEC file with commits etc., source is reduced and you provide the tarball script.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294523
--- Comment #9 from Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com --- Then updating the package would basically be:
1- Run tarball script 2- Replace the id at the top of the SPEC file 3- Bump the spec file (rpmdev-bumpspec will take care of release, changelog, etc:
rpmdev-bumpspec -c "Update to latest sources." purple-skypeweb.spec
4- Upload new sources
fedpkg new-sources purple-skypeweb-<shortcommit>.tar.xz
5- Commit all, push and build
git commit -a -m "Update to latest sources", git push, fedpkg build
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294523
--- Comment #10 from Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com --- Ah, the %autosetup line in the SPEC file would need to be changed as well with the example above (comment #8):
%autosetup -n %{name}-%{commit0}
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294523
--- Comment #11 from Vitaly Zaitsev vitaly@easycoding.org --- Thanks. Replaced script and fixed SPEC due this changes.
New SRPM: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/xvitaly/purple-skypeweb/fedo...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294523
Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #12 from Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com --- Package approved! Thanks for the quick interactions.
Please proceed into asking for SCM access as depicted in the guidelines (point no. 8):
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process#Contributor
If you need any assistance on anything, just drop me an email.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294523
--- Comment #13 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/purple-skypeweb
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294523
--- Comment #14 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been denied with the reason: Re-requesting.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294523
--- Comment #15 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been denied with the reason: Re-requesting.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294523
--- Comment #16 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been denied with the reason: Re-requesting.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294523
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- purple-skypeweb-1.1-9.20160510giteb0b500.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-984c3b0430
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294523
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294523
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- purple-skypeweb-1.1-9.20160510giteb0b500.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-79e860a25c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294523
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- purple-skypeweb-1.1-9.20160510giteb0b500.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-79e860a25c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294523
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- purple-skypeweb-1.1-9.20160510giteb0b500.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-984c3b0430
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294523
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- purple-skypeweb-1.1-9.20160510giteb0b500.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-79e860a25c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294523
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294523
--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- purple-skypeweb-1.1-11.20160620git72f0b00.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-e482d5c765
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294523
--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- purple-skypeweb-1.1-11.20160620git72f0b00.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-76f227d32a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294523
--- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- purple-skypeweb-1.1-11.20160620git72f0b00.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-244b53880a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294523
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- purple-skypeweb-1.1-11.20160620git72f0b00.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-244b53880a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294523
--- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- purple-skypeweb-1.1-11.20160620git72f0b00.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-76f227d32a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294523
--- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- purple-skypeweb-1.1-11.20160620git72f0b00.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-e482d5c765
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294523
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2016-07-03 08:23:27
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294523
--- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- purple-skypeweb-1.1-11.20160620git72f0b00.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294523
--- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- purple-skypeweb-1.1-11.20160620git72f0b00.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294523
--- Comment #30 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- purple-skypeweb-1.1-11.20160620git72f0b00.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org