Bug 1022690
| Summary: | Review Request: gela-asis - Platform/compiler independent implementation of AdaSemantic Interface specification. | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Pavel Zhukov <pzhukov> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Siddharth Sharma <siddharth.kde> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | bjorn, nobody, package-review, pzhukov, reznikmm, siddharth.kde |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | siddharth.kde:
fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+ |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | gela-asis-0.3.2-2.fc20 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2014-03-25 08:20:35 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
|
Description
Pavel Zhukov
2013-10-23 19:25:17 UTC
Spec URL: http://landgraf.fedorapeople.org/packages/gela-asis/gela-asis.spec SRPM URL: http://landgraf.fedorapeople.org/packages/gela-asis/gela-asis-0.3-7.fc19.src.rpm koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6095669 New release. Merge all patches upstream: SPEC: http://landgraf.fedorapeople.org/packages/gela-asis/gela-asis.spec SRPM: http://landgraf.fedorapeople.org/packages/gela-asis/gela-asis-0.3.1-1.fc20.src.rpm koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6208711 Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages - ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. Note: /sbin/ldconfig not called in gela-asis-devel See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Shared_Libraries ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. gela-asis-0.3.1-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm/usr/lib64/gela-asis/libgela-asis.so: ELF 64-bit LSB shared object, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked, BuildID[sha1]=a58ae75e85c6ab7f3939d2fdb642772f1808b324, stripped gela-asis-devel-0.3.1-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm/usr/lib64/gela-asis/libgela-asis.so.0.3.1: ELF 64-bit LSB shared object, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked, BuildID[sha1]=a58ae75e85c6ab7f3939d2fdb642772f1808b324, not stripped [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Note: See rpmlint output gela-asis.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/gela-asis/libgela-asis.so ['/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.8.2/adalib/', '/usr/lib'] gela-asis-devel.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/gela-asis/libgela-asis.so.0.3.1 ['/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.8.2/adalib/', '/usr/lib'] [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) Generic: [!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses From the source it seems 2-clause license ("Simplified BSD License" or "FreeBSD License") but license it self does not contain following : "The views and conclusions contained in the software and documentation are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing official policies, either expressed or implied, of the FreeBSD Project." It does not state "4-clause license (original "BSD License)" or 3-clause license ("Revised BSD License", "New BSD License", or "Modified BSD License") ------------------------- COPYING file contains ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Copyright (c) 2006, Maxim Reznik -- All rights reserved. -- -- Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without -- modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: -- -- * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, -- * this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. -- * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright -- * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the -- * documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. -- -- THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" -- AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE -- IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE -- ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE -- LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR -- CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF -- SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS -- INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN -- CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) -- ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE -- POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/siddharth/Progammer/fedora-review/1022690-gela- asis/licensecheck.txt See above [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. $ rpm -qpl gela-asis-0.3.1-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm | grep COPYING <PASS> /usr/share/doc/gela-asis/COPYING $ rpm -qpl gela-asis-devel-0.3.1-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm | grep COPYING <FAIL> [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [?]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: 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. [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 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 %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]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [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. [-]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: gela-asis-0.3.1-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm gela-asis-devel-0.3.1-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm gela-asis-0.3.1-1.fc20.src.rpm gela-asis.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/gela-asis/libgela-asis.so gela-asis.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/gela-asis/libgela-asis.so ['/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.8.2/adalib/', '/usr/lib'] gela-asis-devel.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/gela-asis/libgela-asis.so.0.3.1 gela-asis-devel.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/gela-asis/libgela-asis.so.0.3.1 ['/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.8.2/adalib/', '/usr/lib'] 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint gela-asis gela-asis-devel gela-asis.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/gela-asis/libgela-asis.so gela-asis.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/gela-asis/libgela-asis.so ['/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.8.2/adalib/', '/usr/lib'] gela-asis-devel.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/gela-asis/libgela-asis.so.0.3.1 gela-asis-devel.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/gela-asis/libgela-asis.so.0.3.1 ['/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.8.2/adalib/', '/usr/lib'] 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- gela-asis (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig gela-asis-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): fedora-gnat-project-common gela-asis(x86-64) Provides -------- gela-asis: gela-asis gela-asis(x86-64) gela-asis-devel: gela-asis-devel gela-asis-devel(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- gela-asis: /usr/lib64/gela-asis/libgela-asis.so gela-asis: /usr/lib64/libgela-asis.so Source checksums ---------------- http://www.ada-ru.org/files/gela-asis-0.3.1.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6b1ec2aeeec9a17a9ae78b0c97b8cc063b361f932b0a12b8a268dc79ed88bc65 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6b1ec2aeeec9a17a9ae78b0c97b8cc063b361f932b0a12b8a268dc79ed88bc65 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (920221d) last change: 2013-08-30 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 1022690 Buildroot used: fedora-20-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, SugarActivity, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EPEL5, EXARCH, DISTTAG Updated: SRPM: http://landgraf.fedorapeople.org/packages/gela-asis/gela-asis-0.3.1-2.fc20.src.rpm SPEC: http://landgraf.fedorapeople.org/packages/gela-asis/gela-asis.spec Rpath removed as documented in the packaging policy. Files without licenses specified are from ada standards: http://www.sigada.org/WG/asiswg/ASISWG_Results.html (from the ISO/IEC 8652:1995 mostly). I'm going to fix license issues in a few days. The idea was to use 3-clause BSD license, but text is corrupted somehow. I've uploaded new version with fixed license notes. http://www.ada-ru.org/files/gela-asis-0.3.2.tar.bz2 bugfix release: http://landgraf.fedorapeople.org/packages/gela-asis/gela-asis.spec http://landgraf.fedorapeople.org/packages/gela-asis/gela-asis-0.3.2-1.fc20.src.rpm koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6245088 This looks like a very interesting project, but I had trouble finding its website. I didn't find anything about either Gela or ASIS on http://www.ada-ru.org/. Eventually I found http://gela.ada-ru.org/gela_asis which looks like the front page for Gela ASIS. Why isn't that URL in the URL field? Bjorn, thank you for the comment, fixed in 0.3.2-2 http://landgraf.fedorapeople.org/packages/gela-asis/gela-asis.spec http://landgraf.fedorapeople.org/packages/gela-asis/gela-asis-0.3.2-2.fc20.src.rpm Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages - ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. Note: /sbin/ldconfig not called in gela-asis-devel See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Shared_Libraries ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [xq]: 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: "BSD (3 clause)" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Copyright (c) 2006-2013, Maxim Reznik -- All rights reserved. -- -- Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without -- modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: -- -- * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, -- this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. -- * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright -- notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the -- documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. -- * Neither the name of the Maxim Reznik, IE nor the names of its -- contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from -- this software without specific prior written permission. -- -- THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" -- AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE -- IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE -- ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE -- LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR -- CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF -- SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS -- INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN -- CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) -- ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE -- POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [x]: 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. [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files. [ ]: 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 %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]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [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. [-]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: %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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: gela-asis-0.3.2-2.fc20.x86_64.rpm gela-asis-devel-0.3.2-2.fc20.x86_64.rpm gela-asis-0.3.2-2.fc20.src.rpm gela-asis.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/gela-asis/libgela-asis.so gela-asis-devel.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/gela-asis/libgela-asis.so.0.3.2 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint gela-asis gela-asis-devel gela-asis.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/gela-asis/libgela-asis.so gela-asis-devel.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/gela-asis/libgela-asis.so.0.3.2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- gela-asis (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig gela-asis-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): fedora-gnat-project-common gela-asis(x86-64) Provides -------- gela-asis: gela-asis gela-asis(x86-64) gela-asis-devel: gela-asis-devel gela-asis-devel(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- gela-asis: /usr/lib64/gela-asis/libgela-asis.so gela-asis: /usr/lib64/libgela-asis.so Source checksums ---------------- http://www.ada-ru.org/files/gela-asis-0.3.2.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 01197e72e1ec18e6ae06894f1ffbddea59a5c0bb8c4bf3b7f9ee4fb57f025b4e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 01197e72e1ec18e6ae06894f1ffbddea59a5c0bb8c4bf3b7f9ee4fb57f025b4e Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (920221d) last change: 2013-08-30 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 1022690 Buildroot used: fedora-20-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, SugarActivity, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EPEL5, EXARCH, DISTTAG ---------------- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: gela-asis Short Description: Platform independent ASIS implementation Owners: landgraf Branches: F20 InitialCC: Git done (by process-git-requests). gela-asis-0.3.2-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gela-asis-0.3.2-2.fc20 gela-asis-0.3.2-2.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository. gela-asis-0.3.2-2.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. |