Bug 997349

Summary:	The URL in rpm spec points to wrong site
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Jan Pazdziora <jpazdziora>
Component:	blueman	Assignee:	Juan Manuel Rodriguez <nushio>
Status:	CLOSED EOL	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	unspecified	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	19	CC:	jpazdziora, nushio
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2015-02-17 16:46:37 UTC	Type:	Bug
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Jan Pazdziora 2013-08-15 08:45:44 UTC

Description of problem:

The (what is supposed to be) upstream URL of the blueman package points to http://blueman-project.org/ which is some advertisment listing, not upstream of the blueman project.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):

# rpm -q blueman
blueman-1.23-6.fc19.x86_64
$ rpm -qp blueman-1.23-7.fc20.i686.rpm 
blueman-1.23-7.fc20.i686

How reproducible:

Deterministic.

Steps to Reproduce:
1. # rpm -q --qf '%{URL}\n\' blueman
2. $ rpm -qp --qf '%{URL}\n\' blueman*.rpm

Actual results:

http://blueman-project.org/

Expected results:

Some other URL pointing to real upstream of the project. What URL, I have no idea.

Additional info:

Comment 1 Juan Manuel Rodriguez 2013-12-10 00:42:40 UTC

Hi Jan, 

Recently Blueman was forked and a new repository can be found at https://github.com/cschramm/blueman/

I decided not to use the new fork, as it is currently incompatible with Bluez5 anyway, and Blueman has been retired as a result. 

Thanks for filing the bug. Should I still update the spec file, in case a future packager needs to find the new upstream?

Comment 2 Jan Pazdziora 2013-12-10 01:30:55 UTC

(In reply to Juan Manuel Rodriguez from comment #1)
> 
> Thanks for filing the bug. Should I still update the spec file, in case a
> future packager needs to find the new upstream?

I think it'd be nice to have the URL in the .spec correct to avoid confusion.

Comment 3 Fedora End Of Life 2015-01-09 19:27:43 UTC

This message is a notice that Fedora 19 is now at end of life. Fedora 
has stopped maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 19. It is 
Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no 
longer maintained. Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now this bug will
be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '19'.

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 19 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.

Comment 4 Fedora End Of Life 2015-02-17 16:46:37 UTC

Fedora 19 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2015-01-06. Fedora 19 is
no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further
security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug.

If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of
Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you
are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the
current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this
bug.

Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.