[Bug 477338] Review Request: php-pecl-imagick - Provides a wrapper to the ImageMagick library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477338
--- Comment #5 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com 2009-01-11 02:58:52
EDT ---
For MUST, of course i mean
Provides: php-pecl(%peclName) = %{version}
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478504] Review Request: gget - Download Manager for the GNOME desktop.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478504
--- Comment #8 from Ant Bryan anthonybr...@gmail.com 2009-01-11 03:23:45 EDT
---
(In reply to comment #7)
(In reply to comment #6)
Do I need to switch to
%{!?python_sitearch: %define python_sitearch %(%{__python} -c from
distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print get_python_lib(1))}
at the beginning of the spec file? It says sitelib for noarch packages,
sitearch for others
No, because you are not using %{python_arch} anywhere in the %files section.
Remove the %{!?python_sitearch:... from the spec, you are not going to need
it.
Removed.
Why don't I see any output when I run gget from a terminal?
No idea, you should.
It works now.
Even with this change, gget still doesn't run for me.
What version and arch are you using?
It runs now, my 0.0.4-4 and 0.0.4-5 versions, i386.
Ok, done.
Yeah, but you are using /usr/share/icons/hicolor/*/apps/gget.* which is
STRICTLY forbidden. Needs to be %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/*/apps/gget.*
Ok, changed it.
I removed %define epimajor 2.23. Where should I use wildcards?
You removed the 'define...', but you did not remove %{epimajor} from
Requires/BuildRequires. IMO you can remove both and then use wildcards in the
files section (as you already do).
Ok, removed %{epimajor} everywhere.
A site note on this issue:
$ rpm -ql gget-epiphany-extension | grep epi
/usr/lib/epiphany
/usr/lib/epiphany/2.22
/usr/lib/epiphany/2.22/extensions
...
As you can see these three directories are already owned by epiphany and there
should not be duplicate dir ownerships as outlined in
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership
So usually we would just own the files, not the dirs with
%{_libdir}/epiphany/2.22/extensions/py*
I'm using Fedora 10, which has Epiphany 2.24. So I used
%{_libdir}/epiphany/*/extensions/gget*
Is that ok?
The problem is: If epiphany gets updated from 2.22 to 2.23 the three
directories will become unowned.
What do I need to do? Just the rebuilds you mention below?
BTW: This also means you will need to to a rebuild gget after every major
version update of epiphany.
That's not a problem for me.
Spec URL: http://pastebin.ca/1305804
SRPM URL: http://www.metalinker.org/mirrors/gget/gget-0.0.4-5.fc10.src.rpm
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 469553] Review Request: asleap - Recovering tool for weak LEAP and PPTP passwords
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469553 --- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-01-11 04:37:21 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) The compiler flags are not correct. They do include -g, though, so the debuginfo package comes out OK. At the moment the package is not building with the compiler flags. I'm concerned that /usr/bin/genkeys is a bit generic. It conflicts with at least some installs of ntp, although not Fedora's. and liblogtrend has /usr/bin/genkeys.pl (although, again, not in Fedora). dkim-milter has dkim-genkey and asterisk has astgenkey. I will get in touch with upstream perhaps they will change the name. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478605] Review Request: arpcheck - Ethernet Layer 2 checking tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478605 --- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-01-11 04:43:30 EDT --- Thanks Christoph, very good points. From my point of view all this points should be implemented by upstream. I will get in touch with those guys and ask them to incorporate your ideas. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459535] Review Request: backup-manager - A command line backup tool for GNU/Linux
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459535 --- Comment #18 from Guillaume Kulakowski guillaume.kulakow...@fedoraproject.org 2009-01-11 04:46:38 EDT --- @Christoph Wickert You review an old package... spec: http://www.llaumgui.com/public/rpm/SPECS/backup-manager.spec rpm: http://www.llaumgui.com/public/rpm/RPMS/fc10/noarch/backup-manager-0.7.7-4.fc10.noarch.rpm src: http://www.llaumgui.com/public/rpm/SRPMS/fc10/backup-manager-0.7.7-4.fc10.src.rpm - llaum...@enterprise ~/Bureau/bm ll 10:44 total 260K -rw-r--r-- 1 llaumgui llaumgui 103K janv. 11 10:42 backup-manager-0.7.7-4.fc10.noarch.rpm -rw-r--r-- 1 llaumgui llaumgui 142K janv. 11 10:43 backup-manager-0.7.7-4.fc10.src.rpm -rw-r--r-- 1 llaumgui llaumgui 3,3K janv. 11 10:42 backup-manager.spec llaum...@enterprise ~/Bureau/bm rpmlint ./* 10:44 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. - The package is OK ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 471145] Review Request: procinfo-ng - System monitoring application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=471145 Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-01-11 05:16:18 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: procinfo-ng Short Description: Console-based system monitoring utility Owners: fab Branches: F-9 F-10 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 471145] Review Request: procinfo-ng - System monitoring application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=471145 Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #7 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-01-11 05:14:39 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) Packaging-wise: APPROVED Thanks for the review * The manual page could/should be patched to remove references to the old hidden option -f (full screen), which has been removed. Patch added -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 429809] Review Request: mumble - low-latency, high quality voice chat software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=429809 --- Comment #12 from Simon Wesp cassmod...@fedoraproject.org 2009-01-11 07:28:03 EDT --- And I have the Problem with missing glibc_private, too Error: Missing Dependency: libc.so.6(GLIBC_PRIVATE) is needed by package mumble Package is not installable -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477338] Review Request: php-pecl-imagick - Provides a wrapper to the ImageMagick library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477338
--- Comment #6 from Pavel Alexeev pa...@hubbitus.spb.su 2009-01-11 08:31:22
EDT ---
Firstly - thank you for review.
(In reply to comment #4)
REVIEW:
SHOULD:
- TODO is provided empty by upstream, so i think it's ok (could be not empty
in
another version)
- INSTALL is also empty but generally provides information about building
from
source which is not usefull with RPM. You should probably remove it (some
package keep it, some remove it)
As mentioned initialy in first post I also thik what it is not errors and I
want to stay it here because it comes from upstream.
- add version in BR (ok for all fedora but EPEL 4 don't have requirement)
BuildRequires: php-devel = 5.1.3, php-pear, ImageMagick-devel = 6.2.4
Ok.
But from what you get minimum requirement version of ImageMagick? I do not
remember what versions was used, but as you can see by changelog, I maintain
(for himself repository off course) this package notably long time, nad do not
remember any problems with IM...
- setup the -n option is needless when -c used
I wasn't known that. Fixed.
- add conditional (recommended in PHP Guidelines)
%post = %if 0%{?pecl_install:1}
%postun = %if 0%{?pecl_uninstall:1}
Done.
Without, you package couldn't be imported in EPEL-5 (macro not defined in old
php-pear, but even pecl install don't work = no extension registration in
this case)
So, EPEL-5 do not require such registration at all??
MUST:
- add the missing virtual provides (from PHP guidelines)
Provides: php-pecl(%peclName)
Ok, added:
Provides: php-pecl(%peclName) = %{version}
Do you want to maintain thi package in EPEL ?
I'm not use this distributions itself. But I can maintain it for EPEL5 on
CentOS. It is acceptable? I compleatly do not want maintain it for EPEL4 (but I
can import for that branch without testing with hope to the best). May be you
want co-mantain it in EPEL4 and/or EPEL5?
http://hubbitus.net.ru/rpm/Fedora9/php-pecl-imagick/php-pecl-imagick-2.2.1-3.fc9.src.rpm
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459535] Review Request: backup-manager - A command line backup tool for GNU/Linux
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459535 Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|gau...@free.fr |fed...@christoph-wickert.de --- Comment #19 from Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de 2009-01-11 08:33:25 EDT --- (In reply to comment #18) @Christoph Wickert You review an old package... No, I haven't really started the review yet. :) I only wanted to show Aurelien that there were some warnings in the package he reviewed and that he did not post them the review. Please stay tuned for a complete review. (In reply to comment #17) No, it's not required to inspect the source code of a package under review. The guidelines state that all (build)requirements need to be met and this can only be checked by taking a look at the source. Not only for shell scripts, but also for code and for Makefiles. Do you have a better suggestion how to do that? :) Look, I know you are trying to improve the quality of the packages in Fedora, and I understand your point of view. However, Fedora, and fedora.us before it, has already tried this route. And we ended up where we have to actually cache as static HTML the list of packages awaiting review, because it is so huge. The list got so long because of the merge reviews and we are caching them now because of the 'review with flags'-thing. Back in the days when we used blocker bugs there it was not necessary to cache the pages. And after the review, the packager is free to make all the mistakes he wants... That's what sponsors and cvsext...@fpo are for. People should look over other's commits. I as a sponsor have set up filters and I take a look at every commit of my sponsorees, at least until I trust them enough. We must not scare packagers away, or bore them to death (this bug was submitted in august 2008). Agreed, but I think it is very important for new packagers to get detailed reviews in order to learn the packaging guidelines. If they get sloppy reviews, they are going to do sloppy packages. A detailed review can be done within less than an hour, so this can't be the reason for this bug being open so long. Please finish your review of backup-manager, and reassign the bug to you. Ok, will do. Can you sponsor Guillaume afterwards? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 475508] Review Request: javassist - The Java Programming Assistant provides simple Java bytecode manipulation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475508 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #10 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-01-11 08:51:32 EDT --- Okay, thanks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478877] Review Request: python-progressbar - Text progressbar library for python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478877 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 | Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #9 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-01-11 08:59:49 EDT --- Okay. This package (python-progressbar) is APPROVED by mtasaka Please follow the procedure written on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join from Install the Client Tools (Koji). Now I am sponsoring you. If you want to import this package into Fedora 9/10, you also have to look at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UpdatesSystem/Bodhi-info-DRAFT (after once you rebuilt this package on koji Fedora rebuilding system). If you have questions, please ask me. Removing NEEDSPONSOR. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477953] Review Request: podcatcher - Armangil's podcast client for the command line
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477953 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477953] Review Request: podcatcher - Armangil's podcast client for the command line
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477953 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-01-11 09:11:39 EDT --- Okay. - This package (podcatcher) is APPROVED by mtasaka - -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 474983] Review Request: TVAnytimeAPI - A java API for parsing, manipulating and creating TV-Anytime metadata
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474983 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|182235 | --- Comment #8 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-01-11 09:15:32 EDT --- Removing FE-Legal. Thank you, spot. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459535] Review Request: backup-manager - A command line backup tool for GNU/Linux
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459535 --- Comment #20 from Aurelien Bompard gau...@free.fr 2009-01-11 09:12:32 EDT --- I don't want to pollute this bug with justifications, so I'm not going to go into further details. As I said, I believe both approaches are useful. The list got so long because of the merge reviews and we are caching them now because of the 'review with flags'-thing. Back in the days when we used blocker bugs there it was not necessary to cache the pages. No-no, the list has always been huge, even before Fedora time. Now, with merge reviews, the list is just gigantic. The fact that the static pages were officially added only recently does not change the fact that we never found a way to cope efficiently with the amount of submissions. If they get sloppy reviews, they are going to do sloppy packages. I don't agree with that. But hey, this discussion occurred many many times before on fedora-devel, and there always were these two sides. It's probably not going to change here and now. Can you sponsor Guillaume afterwards? Sure. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477953] Review Request: podcatcher - Armangil's podcast client for the command line
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477953 Christof Damian chris...@damian.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #9 from Christof Damian chris...@damian.net 2009-01-11 09:22:47 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: podcatcher Short Description: Armangil's podcast client for the command line Owners: cdamian Branches: F-10 EL-5 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478877] Review Request: python-progressbar - Text progressbar library for python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478877 Christof Damian chris...@damian.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from Christof Damian chris...@damian.net 2009-01-11 09:23:32 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: python-progressbar Short Description: Text progressbar library for python Owners: cdamian Branches: F-10 EL-5 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 474983] Review Request: TVAnytimeAPI - A java API for parsing, manipulating and creating TV-Anytime metadata
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474983
Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #9 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-01-11
10:04:00 EDT ---
For 1.3-2:
* License
- The License tag should be LGPLv2+.
* javadoc directory
- Would you explain why you don't simply use
%{_javadocdir}/%{name} as javadoc installation
directory and instead want to use %_javadocdir/%name-%version
and create symlink?
! Note
On rpm packaging please take much care of creating symlink
pointing to directory, because with rpm restriction (or cpio?)
once this is done it gets very difficult to change this
symlink to actual directory or so.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467389] Review Request: mingw32-pthreads - MinGW pthread library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467389 Levente Farkas lfar...@lfarkas.org changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lfar...@lfarkas.org -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467389] Review Request: mingw32-pthreads - MinGW pthread library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467389 Levente Farkas lfar...@lfarkas.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467389] Review Request: mingw32-pthreads - MinGW pthread library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467389 --- Comment #4 from Levente Farkas lfar...@lfarkas.org 2009-01-11 10:44:21 EDT --- the latest mercurial spec file and patchs are good. This package (mingw32-pthreads) is APPROVED by lfarkas -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467389] Review Request: mingw32-pthreads - MinGW pthread library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467389 Levente Farkas lfar...@lfarkas.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 451153] Review Request: mapbender - Geospatial portal for OGC OWS architectures
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=451153 Balint Cristian re...@rdsor.ro changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478722] Review Request: ossim - Open Source Software Image Map
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478722 --- Comment #2 from Balint Cristian re...@rdsor.ro 2009-01-11 11:05:22 EDT --- Hello Marek, I'm getting this error during --rebuild: http://pastebin.sk/en/10331/ You need FC10 or -rawhide. 1) I will require for this: BuildRequires: OpenSceneGraph-devel = 2.6 OpenThreads-devel = 2.6 2) Also I am getting soname and rpath issues, so hold on to spinn a new src.rpm to fix all these issues. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477732] Review Request: xfconf - Hierarchical configuration system for Xfce
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477732 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-01-11 11:38:14 EDT --- Thanks! Package Name: xfconf Short Description: Hierarchical configuration system for Xfce Owners: kevin Branches: devel InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 471145] Review Request: procinfo-ng - System monitoring application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=471145 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #9 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-01-11 11:51:01 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473754] Review Request: nopaste - Command-line interface to rafb.net/paste
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473754 --- Comment #8 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-01-11 11:54:22 EDT --- In reply to comment #5: Phil has given up Have you communicated with Phil? Or just assumed they didn't have time to move forward? Typically we would want to close this if that was the case, and file a new review with the new submitter. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459535] Review Request: backup-manager - A command line backup tool for GNU/Linux
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459535
Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|177841 |
--- Comment #21 from Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de
2009-01-11 11:53:34 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #20)
I don't want to pollute this bug with justifications, so I'm not going to go
into further details.
Me ether, nevertheless I'd like you to read my review and ask yourself if the
package really was ready for approval. No need to answer here, just think about
it.
The fact that the static pages were
officially added only recently does not change the fact that we never found a
way to cope efficiently with the amount of submissions.
The static pages were not added recently but after we switched to reviews with
flags because searching for flags in bugzilla is not trivial. Please ask
Christian Iseli if you don't believe me.
Can you sponsor Guillaume afterwards?
Sure.
Thanks, so I'm removing the blocker on bug # 177841 now.
REVIEW FOR ab3594db4b6b5fe1740b606ad06d41cd
backup-manager-0.7.7-4.fc10.src.rpm
OK - MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package.
$ rpmlint
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/result/backup-manager-0.7.7-4.fc11.*
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
OK - MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
OK - MUST: The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
- MUST: The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
OK - MUST: The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license (GPLv2+) and
meets the Licensing Guidelines.
OK - MUST: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual
license.
OK - MUST: The license file from the source package is included in %doc.
OK - MUST: The spec file is in American English.
OK - MUST: The spec file for the package is legible.
OK - MUST: The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source by
MD5 076af845dee01453f450bd06d021fcc3
OK - MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on
i386
N/A - MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
FIX - MUST: Not all build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires:
The package runs pod2man to localize the manpages. pod2man is provided by the
perl package, which is pulled in automatically, but should be listed explicitly
because it is not in
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2
OK - MUST: The spec file handles locales properly with the %find_lang macro.
N/A - MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared
library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths,
must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
N/A - MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package.
OK - MUST: The package owns all directories that it creates.
OK - MUST: The package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files
listing.
OK - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly. The %files section includes a
%defattr(...) line.
OK - MUST: The package has a %clean section, which contains or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
OK - MUST: The package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines.
OK - MUST: The package contains code, no content.
N/A - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage.
OK - MUST: Files included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application.
N/A - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
N/A - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
N/A - MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires:
pkgconfig'.
N/A - MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
a -devel package.
N/A - MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
OK - MUST: The package does not contain any .la libtool archives.
N/A - MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section.
OK - MUST: The packages does not own files or directories already owned by
other packages.
OK - MUST: At the beginning of %install, the package runs $RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
OK - MUST: All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
N/A - SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from
[Bug 479055] Review Request: perl-Class-Throwable - A minimal lightweight exception class
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479055 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #3 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-01-11 12:00:21 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476440] Review Request: latexdiff - Determine and mark up significant differences between latex files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476440 Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #9 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2009-01-11 11:59:29 EDT --- All good. This package (latexdiff) is APPROVED by oget Please supply the SRPM (in addition to the SPEC) whenever you make an update during the review process in the future. It makes life easier for reviewers. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478846] Review Request: cpm - Console Password Manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478846 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #7 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-01-11 11:57:02 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477732] Review Request: xfconf - Hierarchical configuration system for Xfce
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477732 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #9 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-01-11 11:58:13 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478412] Review Request: mpop - POP3 client for recieving mail from POP3 mailboxes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478412 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #9 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-01-11 12:03:24 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478940] Review Request: perl-Catalyst-Plugin-Authorization-Roles - Role based authorization for Catalyst
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478940 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? | --- Comment #3 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-01-11 12:06:59 EDT --- This package was already reviewed and added to fedora. See bug 477122 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478942] Review Request: perl-Catalyst-Authentication-Store-DBIx-Class - A storage class for Catalyst Authentication
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478942 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #7 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-01-11 12:08:42 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477953] Review Request: podcatcher - Armangil's podcast client for the command line
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477953 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #10 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-01-11 12:16:01 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479056] Review Request: perl-Catalyst-Plugin-Authorization-ACL - ACL Support for Catalyst Applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479056 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #3 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-01-11 12:11:57 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478877] Review Request: python-progressbar - Text progressbar library for python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478877 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #11 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-01-11 12:20:10 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477338] Review Request: php-pecl-imagick - Provides a wrapper to the ImageMagick library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477338 --- Comment #7 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com 2009-01-11 12:19:29 EDT --- But from what you get minimum requirement version of ImageMagick? From upstream (and spec) description ;) So, EPEL-5 do not require such registration at all?? No, like in older fedora (pear 1.7) it wasn't possible. But I can maintain it for EPEL5 on CentOS Yes I compleatly do not want maintain it for EPEL4 Anyway, it is not possible as EL-4 only provides php 4.3.9 May be you want co-mantain it in EPEL4 and/or EPEL5? Yes, add my FAS (remi) to the CC and request the EL-5 branch in you CVS request. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479218] Review Request: perl-DateTime-Format-Flexible - Flexibly parse strings and turn them into DateTime objects
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479218 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #4 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-01-11 12:21:23 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477338] Review Request: php-pecl-imagick - Provides a wrapper to the ImageMagick library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477338 Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com 2009-01-11 12:20:06 EDT --- All changes are OK. Package APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 232160] Review Request: ruby-gnome2 - A ruby binding of libgnome/libgnomeui-2.x
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=232160 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #47 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-01-11 12:23:36 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479223] Review Request: perl-DateTime-Format-DateParse - Parse Date::Parse compatible formats
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479223 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #3 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-01-11 12:22:44 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478412] Review Request: mpop - POP3 client for recieving mail from POP3 mailboxes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478412 --- Comment #10 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-01-11 12:24:36 EDT --- Thank you all for reviewing and cvs. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 457059] Review Request: txt2tags - A document converter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457059 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #17 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-01-11 12:24:42 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 472229] Review Request: PyQwt - Python bindings for Qwt
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472229 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #5 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-01-11 12:52:46 EDT --- Well, for 5.1.0-2: * Header files dependency: - Well, for example the installed QwtModule.sip contains: 63 #include sipQwtQwtArrayDouble.h 64 #include sipQwtQwtArrayInt.h 65 #include sipQwtQwtArrayQwtDoubleInterval.h 66 #include sipQwtQwtArrayQwtDoublePoint.h - However these header files are not installed. Would you check if these are ignored? * About grace.py - Well, I checked this file again and actually this file is executable, so it is more correct that this script should simply have 0755 permission (while for qplt.py it seems that this script cannot be executed directly). Then: - NOTE: Before being sponsored: This package will be accepted with another few work. But before I accept this package, someone (I am a candidate) must sponsor you. Once you are sponsored, you have the right to review other submitters' review requests and approve the packages formally. For this reason, the person who want to be sponsored (like you) are required to show that you have an understanding of the process and of the packaging guidelines as is described on : http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/HowToGetSponsored Usually there are two ways to show this. A. submit other review requests with enough quality. B. Do a pre-review of other person's review request (at the time you are not sponsored, you cannot do a formal review) When you have submitted a new review request or have pre-reviewed other person's review request, please write the bug number on this bug report so that I can check your comments or review request. Fedora package collection review requests which are waiting for someone to review can be checked on: http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEW.html (NOTE: please don't choose Merge Review) Review guidelines are described mainly on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478412] Review Request: mpop - POP3 client for recieving mail from POP3 mailboxes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478412 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-01-11 13:09:43 EDT --- mpop-1.0.16-3.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mpop-1.0.16-3.fc9 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478412] Review Request: mpop - POP3 client for recieving mail from POP3 mailboxes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478412 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-01-11 13:09:47 EDT --- mpop-1.0.16-3.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mpop-1.0.16-3.fc10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 471145] Review Request: procinfo-ng - System monitoring application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=471145 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-01-11 13:07:01 EDT --- procinfo-ng-2.0.217-3.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/procinfo-ng-2.0.217-3.fc9 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 471145] Review Request: procinfo-ng - System monitoring application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=471145 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-01-11 13:07:04 EDT --- procinfo-ng-2.0.217-3.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/procinfo-ng-2.0.217-3.fc10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479585] New: Review Request: megaupload-dl - Megaupload automatic downloader
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: megaupload-dl - Megaupload automatic downloader https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479585 Summary: Review Request: megaupload-dl - Megaupload automatic downloader Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: mma...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Target Release: --- Spec URL: http://mmahut.fedorapeople.org/reviews/megaupload-dl/megaupload-dl.spec SRPM URL: http://mmahut.fedorapeople.org/reviews/megaupload-dl/megaupload-dl-0.1.3-1.fc8.src.rpm Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID Description: Megaupload-dl helps on the painful process of downloading files hosted on the popular Megaupload site if you don't have a premium account. The process is completely automatic as the captcha is recognized using a OCR. The script (run from the command line, there is no GUI) only returns the file link; use your favorite web downloader to actually get the file. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479585] Review Request: megaupload-dl - Megaupload automatic downloader
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479585 --- Comment #1 from Marek Mahut mma...@redhat.com 2009-01-11 13:46:32 EDT --- Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1045389 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476440] Review Request: latexdiff - Determine and mark up significant differences between latex files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476440 Dan Kenigsberg dan...@cs.technion.ac.il changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from Dan Kenigsberg dan...@cs.technion.ac.il 2009-01-11 13:50:00 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: latexdiff Short Description: Determine and mark up significant differences between latex files Owners: danken Branches: F-10 InitialCC: danken -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477870] Review Request: eclipse-emf - Eclipse Modeling Framework (EMF) Eclipse plugin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477870 --- Comment #9 from Mat Booth fed...@matbooth.co.uk 2009-01-11 13:51:52 EDT --- Spec URL: http://mbooth.fedorapeople.org/reviews/eclipse-emf.spec SRPM URL: http://mbooth.fedorapeople.org/reviews/eclipse-emf-2.4.1-3.fc10.src.rpm What I did was make the package names the same as what they used to be, with the exception of the standalone package, which I obsoleted because upstream removed support for it in EMF 2.3. (See http://wiki.eclipse.org/EMF/EMF_2.3/Standalone_Zip_Removal) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479585] Review Request: megaupload-dl - Megaupload automatic downloader
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479585 Pavel Alexeev pa...@hubbitus.spb.su changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pa...@hubbitus.spb.su --- Comment #2 from Pavel Alexeev pa...@hubbitus.spb.su 2009-01-11 14:57:15 EDT --- Excuse me, will it include Rapidshare downloader ( http://code.google.com/p/megaupload-dl/wiki/RapidShare ) as part of upstream megaupload-dl project ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473754] Review Request: nopaste - Command-line interface to rafb.net/paste
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473754 --- Comment #9 from Simon Wesp cassmod...@fedoraproject.org 2009-01-11 15:04:51 EDT --- i chatted with him. a few days ago. He gave up the whole fedora contributor idea. he dropped moon-buggy #469585 as well.. for one little adjustment a new bug?! Okay!!! Next time, I will do this. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459535] Review Request: backup-manager - A command line backup tool for GNU/Linux
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459535 --- Comment #22 from Guillaume Kulakowski guillaume.kulakow...@fedoraproject.org 2009-01-11 15:04:16 EDT --- Correction made : spec: http://www.llaumgui.com/public/rpm/SPECS/backup-manager.spec rpm: http://www.llaumgui.com/public/rpm/RPMS/fc10/noarch/backup-manager-0.7.7-5.fc10.noarch.rpm src: http://www.llaumgui.com/public/rpm/SRPMS/fc10/backup-manager-0.7.7-5.fc10.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479585] Review Request: megaupload-dl - Megaupload automatic downloader
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479585
Jochen Schmitt joc...@herr-schmitt.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||joc...@herr-schmitt.de
--- Comment #3 from Jochen Schmitt joc...@herr-schmitt.de 2009-01-11
15:13:24 EDT ---
Good:
+ RPMlist is silent on source rpm.
+ Basename of the SPEC file fit the package name.
+ Consistent usage fo rpm macros
+ %doc section is small, so no sepearte doc subpackage is require.
+ Tar Ball match with upstream tar ball:
(md5sum: 8a03cafa72888565f48cf100150c004a)
+ Files sections contains no files or directories which belongs to othe
packages.
Bad:
- Package should contains the BRs to python a python-BeautifulSoup.
- Place remove the argument from the get_python_lib funcstion, so you should
wrote:
%{!?python_sitelib: %define python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c from
distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print get_python_lib())}
- Please put
%{python_sitelib}/megaupload*
into the %files section, so the egg-info file may be includes into your
package.
- Please a 'BuildArch: noarch' on your package, because it's doesn't contains
archtiecture depending contents.
- Con't verfiy License tag of the package.
- Not any source files of the package contains a copyright notice.
- package contains no verbatin copy of the license text.
(I have open a but on the upstream website. Please refer to
http://code.google.com/p/megaupload-dl/issues/detail?id=2)
- Rpmlint complaints on binary rpm:
megaupload-dl.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/megaupload_dl/lib.py 0644
megaupload-dl.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/doc/megaupload-dl-0.1.3/megaupload_dl_wget.sh
megaupload-dl.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/megaupload_dl/megaupload_dl.py 0644
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479585] Review Request: megaupload-dl - Megaupload automatic downloader
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479585 Jochen Schmitt joc...@herr-schmitt.de changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479585] Review Request: megaupload-dl - Megaupload automatic downloader
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479585 --- Comment #4 from Marek Mahut mma...@redhat.com 2009-01-11 15:27:31 EDT --- You're too quick sorry :) That wasn't final SRPM I've built in koji, but it is uploaded now. Spec URL: http://mmahut.fedorapeople.org/reviews/megaupload-dl/megaupload-dl.spec SRPM URL: http://mmahut.fedorapeople.org/reviews/megaupload-dl/megaupload-dl-0.1.3-1.fc8.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479585] Review Request: megaupload-dl - Megaupload automatic downloader
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479585 --- Comment #5 from Jochen Schmitt joc...@herr-schmitt.de 2009-01-11 15:40:28 EDT --- OK, the local build works fine now, But you should really add a 'BuildArch: noarch' on your package, because it's doesn't contains any archtecture depending content. The complaints of rpmlint agains the binary rpm sill exist. The same issue are the licensing issues because the sources contains no copyright notive and the upstream package contains no verbatin copy of the license text. Even of the project homepage i couldN't find any hint about the licensing state of the package. for will emphasis, taht this is a very severe issue. At last: Please increase the release counter if you are releasing a new source rpm. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479585] Review Request: megaupload-dl - Megaupload automatic downloader
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479585 --- Comment #6 from Jochen Schmitt joc...@herr-schmitt.de 2009-01-11 15:46:03 EDT --- I have take a second look of the project homepage. On the right magin I have found the information, that the package is copyrighted on the GPLv3. This is a valid open source license for the Fedora project. But the issue of the missing copyright notices in the source files sill exist. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479585] Review Request: megaupload-dl - Megaupload automatic downloader
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479585 --- Comment #7 from Jochen Schmitt joc...@herr-schmitt.de 2009-01-11 15:47:44 EDT --- I have take a second look of the project homepage. On the right magin I have found the information, that the package is copyrighted on the GPLv3. This is a valid open source license for the Fedora project. But the issue of the missing copyright notices in the source files sill exist. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479585] Review Request: megaupload-dl - Megaupload automatic downloader
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479585 --- Comment #10 from Marek Mahut mma...@redhat.com 2009-01-11 15:53:48 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) Excuse me, will it include Rapidshare downloader ( http://code.google.com/p/megaupload-dl/wiki/RapidShare ) as part of upstream megaupload-dl project ? We may package repidshare downloader later, in different package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479585] Review Request: megaupload-dl - Megaupload automatic downloader
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479585 --- Comment #9 from Marek Mahut mma...@redhat.com 2009-01-11 15:53:16 EDT --- Spec URL: http://mmahut.fedorapeople.org/reviews/megaupload-dl/megaupload-dl.spec SRPM URL: http://mmahut.fedorapeople.org/reviews/megaupload-dl/megaupload-dl-0.1.3-2.fc8.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479585] Review Request: megaupload-dl - Megaupload automatic downloader
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479585 --- Comment #8 from Marek Mahut mma...@redhat.com 2009-01-11 15:52:20 EDT --- Jochen, - noarch package done - I tihnk rpmlint warnings can be ignored here, we don't need exec permission on these python scripts (they are called from the main script) - do you think it's an issue to have that doc script executable? - I've contacted legal team, to find out if it's ok to include this package in Fedora, as it could be in violation of DCMA -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226380] Merge Review: rsync
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226380 --- Comment #9 from Robert Scheck redhat-bugzi...@linuxnetz.de 2009-01-11 15:59:52 EDT --- Thank you, Simo. Dumb question from my side: Is there a special reason for following release tag usage: rsync-3.0.5-1.fc10 rsync-3.0.5-0.fc11 Why don't have both the same release? Was there some special reason? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473754] Review Request: nopaste - Command-line interface to rafb.net/paste
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473754 --- Comment #10 from Simon Wesp cassmod...@fedoraproject.org 2009-01-11 16:04:15 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: nopaste Short Description: Command-line interface to rafb.net/paste Owners: cassmodiah fab Branches: F-9 F-10 EL-4 EL-5 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 470727] Review Request: slimdata - Tools and library for reading and writing slim compressed data
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470727 --- Comment #2 from Matthew Truch m...@truch.net 2009-01-11 16:11:03 EDT --- - there is a newer upstream 2.6.1b, and it seems upstream switched to a more sane naming. Thanks for pointing it out, and yes, significantly saner in the naming department. - a and b tags from version seems to me like post release package, so please see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#NonNumericRelease Of course, and since they are Properly ordered simple versions it's ok to have the 'b' in the Version (and the 'a' previously). - there is a doc target for building development documentation (requires doxgey and pdfjam) Thanks for pointing it out. It now builds the docs when I build locally, but there are errors when I try a koji scratch build. - rpmlint is not silent: slimdata.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/libslim.so you need to set the exec bit on the so file OK. slimdata.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libslim.so library does not have soname set, as this is a system library this is a blocker. you will have to recompile the file with -Wl,-soname -Wl,libslim.so. You should also report this upstream. Then also the symlinks need to be generated properly. I'll report (and discuss) this with upstream before I fix fully. slimdata.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libslim.so e...@glibc_2.2.5 slimdata.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libslim.so exit@@GLIBC_2.2.5 This library package calls exit() or _exit(), probably in a non-fork() context. Doing so from a library is strongly discouraged - when a library function calls exit(), it prevents the calling program from handling the error, reporting it to the user, closing files properly, and cleaning up any state that the program has. It is preferred for the library to return an actual error code and let the calling program decide how to handle the situation. these are not blockers but they should be reported upstream I'll let upstream know. slimdata-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation see my previous comment about documentation. OK. New spec and srpm available: http://matt.truch.net/fedora/slimdata.spec http://matt.truch.net/fedora/slimdata-2.6.1b-1.fc11.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479585] Review Request: megaupload-dl - Megaupload automatic downloader
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479585 --- Comment #11 from Jochen Schmitt joc...@herr-schmitt.de 2009-01-11 16:28:19 EDT --- Upstream has notified me, that a release 0.2 is available now. But unfortunately not all complainted copyrigh related issue are fixed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479585] Review Request: megaupload-dl - Megaupload automatic downloader
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479585 --- Comment #12 from Marek Mahut mma...@redhat.com 2009-01-11 16:35:20 EDT --- New SRPM uploaded. http://mmahut.fedorapeople.org/reviews/megaupload-dl/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479594] New: Review Request: email - A command line SMTP client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: email - A command line SMTP client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479594 Summary: Review Request: email - A command line SMTP client Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: fab...@bernewireless.net QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/email.spec SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/email-3.1.2-1.fc9.src.rpm Project URL: http://www.cleancode.org/projects/email Description: mail is a program for the Unix environment that sends messages from the command line. It let you send email to remote SMTP servers. Email makes it simple to implement in cron jobs. You can pipe data into email and it will accept it as your message which will bypass opening your editor, and mail it properly. Also, you can tell email to stay quiet and never display any output (except for errors) when operating. Email boasts a lot of other qualities as well. * Email supports SMTP Authentication. * Email makes it possible to send to multiple recipients and also CC and BCC multiple recipients. * You can use an address book that is in an easy to format method. * You are also able to send attachments using a swift flick on the command line to specifying multiple files. * Personalized signature file with dynamic options. Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1045764 rpmlint output: [...@laptop024 i386]$ rpmlint email* 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [...@laptop024 SRPMS]$ rpmlint email-3.1.2-1.fc9.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 471915] Review Request: jbossweb2 - JBoss Web Server based on Apache Tomcat
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=471915 --- Comment #18 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2009-01-11 16:40:33 EDT --- So, the key problem that Red Hat Legal identified was with the licensing on the JSON code (java/org/apache/tomcat/util/json/JSON*): /* Copyright (c) 2002 JSON.org Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the Software), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED AS IS, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. */ The sentence The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil. makes it non-free, as it is impossible for us to abide by that use-case restriction. We hit this once before with a different package, and tried to contact the copyright holder, but he was unwilling to alter the line (changing shall to should would suffice to make it a suggestion rather than a legal requirement). Either this code needs to be removed (from both the source and the binary RPM) or JSON.org needs to relicense it without that sentence. In addition to that, the license tag is incorrect on the package, there is no LGPLv3 code in this package that I could see, all of it is either Apache 2.0, LGPLv2+ or the non-free license I mentioned above. Remember that the presense of LICENSING/COPYING does not signal license versioning in the case of GPL/LGPL. Ignoring the Evil license, the License tag should be: License: LGPLv2+ and ASL 2.0 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479595] New: Review Request: raddump - RADIUS packets interpreter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: raddump - RADIUS packets interpreter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479595 Summary: Review Request: raddump - RADIUS packets interpreter Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: fab...@bernewireless.net QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/raddump.spec SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/raddump-0.3.1-1.fc9.src.rpm Project URL: http://sourceforge.net/projects/raddump Description: raddump interprets captured RADIUS packets to print a timestamp, packet length, RADIUS packet type, source and destination hosts and ports, and included attribute names and values for each packet. Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1045797 rpmlint output: [...@laptop024 i386]$ rpmlint raddump* 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [...@laptop024 SRPMS]$ rpmlint raddump-0.3.1-1.fc9.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479596] New: Review Request: serafettin-fonts - Comic Sans fonts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: serafettin-fonts - Comic Sans fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479596 Summary: Review Request: serafettin-fonts - Comic Sans fonts Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: oget.fed...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://oget.fedorapeople.org/review/serafettin-fonts.spec SRPM URL: http://oget.fedorapeople.org/review/serafettin-fonts-0.3-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: Serafettin aims to be a collection of free Latin fonts for daily usage. Currently it contains a free comic Sans font, covering the ISO8859-1 character set. It is based on Thukkaram Gopalrao's TSCu_Comic of tamillinux project. - I should note that I am the upstream of these fonts and I'm open to any constructive criticism. rpmlint is silent. fonts packaged according to the new guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package The fonts that serafettin-fonts are based on can be found at: http://tamillinux.sourceforge.net/ https://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=14214 These fonts were released under GPL hence I am releasing serafettin-fonts under GPL. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 469972] Review Request: libglfw - A portable framework for OpenGL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469972 Robert Scheck red...@linuxnetz.de changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: glfw - A|Review Request: libglfw - A |portable framework for |portable framework for |OpenGL |OpenGL --- Comment #17 from Robert Scheck red...@linuxnetz.de 2009-01-11 17:01:33 EDT --- Lubomir, thanks for doing the work. I had a short look to it in CVS and it now looks fine to me. Can you also please prepare a same well done update for F-9 if not already done? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479596] Review Request: serafettin-fonts - Comic Sans fonts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479596 Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fedora-fonts-bugs-l...@redh ||at.com, tcall...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net 2009-01-11 17:19:36 EDT --- @spot: please check the licensing history is clean (seems so, but I'm no expert) @oget: — please add a page (packaging request) describing your font describing your font as documented in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Font_package_lifecycle — please make sure your description/summary does not contain trademarked terms belonging to hostile entities -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479218] Review Request: perl-DateTime-Format-Flexible - Flexibly parse strings and turn them into DateTime objects
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479218 Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #5 from Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu 2009-01-11 17:38:09 EDT --- Thanks for the review! :-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479598] New: Review Request: aopalliance - AOP offers a better solution to many problems than do existing technologies
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: aopalliance - AOP offers a better solution to many problems than do existing technologies https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479598 Summary: Review Request: aopalliance - AOP offers a better solution to many problems than do existing technologies Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: s...@sandro-mathys.ch QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://red.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/aopalliance.spec SRPM URL: http://red.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/aopalliance-1.0-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: Aspect-Oriented Programming (AOP) offers a better solution to many problems than do existing technologies such as EJB. AOP Alliance intends to facilitate and standardize the use of AOP to enhance existing middleware environments (such as J2EE), or development environements (e.g. JBuilder, Eclipse). The AOP Alliance also aims to ensure interoperability between Java/J2EE AOP implementations to build a larger AOP community. Pretty easy software / package, shouldn't make any worries for the review :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479223] Review Request: perl-DateTime-Format-DateParse - Parse Date::Parse compatible formats
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479223 Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #4 from Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu 2009-01-11 17:38:14 EDT --- Thanks for the review! :-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 474983] Review Request: TVAnytimeAPI - A java API for parsing, manipulating and creating TV-Anytime metadata
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474983 --- Comment #10 from Sandro Mathys s...@sandro-mathys.ch 2009-01-11 17:50:03 EDT --- Spec URL: http://red.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/TVAnytimeAPI.spec SRPM URL: http://red.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/TVAnytimeAPI-1.3-2.fc11.src.rpm * License corrected. * Because I was told I should in another review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475019#c6 ...honestly, I've also just checked my /usr/share/javadoc/* and while there's not much in there, everything is using %name-%version with a symlink to it :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477870] Review Request: eclipse-emf - Eclipse Modeling Framework (EMF) Eclipse plugin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477870 --- Comment #10 from Nick Boldt nickboldt+red...@gmail.com 2009-01-11 17:52:32 EDT --- Re: comment #9 (spec URL) Your spec file has: Name: eclipse-emf but then later %package sdo-sdk Should the %packages also have the eclipse- prefix so that they can be easily found with `yum search eclipse`? (Forgive this newb question.) BTW, SDO is deprecated in the current release of EMF 2.5 (under development, due June 2009), so for Fedora 12, you might want to build a package for the Apache Tuscany SDO project as a replacement. http://wiki.apache.org/ws/Tuscany/TuscanyJava/SDO_Java_Overview -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 456684] Review Request: pathfinder - X.509 Path Discovery and Validation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456684 Bug 456684 depends on bug 479144, which changed state. Bug 479144 Summary: Please build libwvstreams --with-dbus https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479144 What|Old Value |New Value Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|RAWHIDE | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478940] Review Request: perl-Catalyst-Plugin-Authorization-Roles - Role based authorization for Catalyst
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478940 manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478940] Review Request: perl-Catalyst-Plugin-Authorization-Roles - Role based authorization for Catalyst
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478940 manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|NOTABUG |DUPLICATE --- Comment #4 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2009-01-11 18:51:09 EDT --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 477122 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477122] Review Request: perl-Catalyst-Plugin-Authorization-Roles - Role based authorization for Catalyst based on Catalyst::Plugin::Authentication
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477122 manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro changed: What|Removed |Added CC||so...@cmu.edu --- Comment #8 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2009-01-11 18:51:09 EDT --- *** Bug 478940 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478942] Review Request: perl-Catalyst-Authentication-Store-DBIx-Class - A storage class for Catalyst Authentication
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478942 Bug 478942 depends on bug 478940, which changed state. Bug 478940 Summary: Review Request: perl-Catalyst-Plugin-Authorization-Roles - Role based authorization for Catalyst https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478940 What|Old Value |New Value Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479056] Review Request: perl-Catalyst-Plugin-Authorization-ACL - ACL Support for Catalyst Applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479056 Bug 479056 depends on bug 478940, which changed state. Bug 478940 Summary: Review Request: perl-Catalyst-Plugin-Authorization-Roles - Role based authorization for Catalyst https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478940 What|Old Value |New Value Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 468462] Review Request: sbackup - Simple Backup Suite for desktop use
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468462 --- Comment #7 from Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de 2009-01-11 18:56:22 EDT --- - Timestamp of Source0 is fixed. - Please remove SystemSettings from the desktop files again, it's better for comptatibility. Sorry for the noise, apart from that the desktop files are ok now. - rpmlint warning regarding usermode can be ignored, but the changelog could be a little better, e. g.: Require usermode-gtk instead of usermode for the password dialog. But this is really trivial. - on the fly creation of files: Your decision, you are the one to maintain the package. ;) - (How) Do we own the cron files? - Can you explain the makefile.patch a little? Why are you preventing installation of the desktop files and the locales? - Provides: gvfs = 1.0 looks bogus to me -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479603] New: Review Request: shcov - A gcov and lcov coverage test tool for bourne shell / bash scripts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: shcov - A gcov and lcov coverage test tool for bourne shell / bash scripts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479603 Summary: Review Request: shcov - A gcov and lcov coverage test tool for bourne shell / bash scripts Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: fab...@bernewireless.net QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/shcov.spec SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/shcov-3-1.fc9.src.rpm Project URL: http://code.google.com/p/shcov/ Description: shcov is a gcov-like code coverage tester for bourne shell / bash scripts. It also has a lcov-like HTML output generator to present coverage results. Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1046165 rpmlint output: [...@laptop024 noarch]$ rpmlint shcov-3-1.fc9.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [...@laptop024 SRPMS]$ rpmlint shcov-3-1.fc9.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477870] Review Request: eclipse-emf - Eclipse Modeling Framework (EMF) Eclipse plugin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477870 --- Comment #11 from Mat Booth fed...@matbooth.co.uk 2009-01-11 19:10:47 EDT --- (In reply to comment #10) Re: comment #9 (spec URL) Your spec file has: Name: eclipse-emf but then later %package sdo-sdk Should the %packages also have the eclipse- prefix so that they can be easily found with `yum search eclipse`? (Forgive this newb question.) They are given the eclipse- prefix by default. :-) (To specify otherwise, you have to use %package with the -n flag.) BTW, SDO is deprecated in the current release of EMF 2.5 (under development, due June 2009), so for Fedora 12, you might want to build a package for the Apache Tuscany SDO project as a replacement. http://wiki.apache.org/ws/Tuscany/TuscanyJava/SDO_Java_Overview I don't really use SDO (and I'm not aware of anything in Fedora that does). Is that a straight drop-in replacement? I was just planning on Obsoleting it when Andrew packages Eclipse 3.5 and just letting it die. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479230] Review Request: pidgin-privacy-please - Stop spam bots for Pidgin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479230 --- Comment #8 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-01-11 19:11:55 EDT --- Guillaume, as soon as you are sponsored, please go on with the cvs procedure. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/CVSAdminProcedure -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 478388] Review Request: UDAV - data visualisation program
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478388 --- Comment #3 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-01-11 19:20:47 EDT --- Change your summary to something like 'Summary: Universal data array visualization', there is no need to repeat the package name. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479598] Review Request: aopalliance - AOP offers a better solution to many problems than do existing technologies
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479598 Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fed...@christoph-wickert.de --- Comment #1 from Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de 2009-01-11 19:43:23 EDT --- This is the worst summary I have ever seen! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479598] Review Request: aopalliance - AOP offers a better solution to many problems than do existing technologies
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479598 --- Comment #2 from Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de 2009-01-11 19:49:38 EDT --- Why not use: AOP saves the world as summary? ;) Package version is wrong, see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 479230] Review Request: pidgin-privacy-please - Stop spam bots for Pidgin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479230 --- Comment #9 from Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de 2009-01-11 19:57:17 EDT --- Aurelien will sponsor Guillaume as soon as I approve bug # 459535. BTW: Fabian, generally speaking you are right: Because Guillaume is a new contributor, the review needs to be done by a sponsor. Nevertheless your review is very good, I have re-checked most of the points and the other review is nearly finished, so I don't see a problem here. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459535] Review Request: backup-manager - A command line backup tool for GNU/Linux
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459535 --- Comment #24 from Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de 2009-01-11 20:05:49 EDT --- Please don't forget BuildRequires: perl as outlined comment # 21. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459535] Review Request: backup-manager - A command line backup tool for GNU/Linux
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459535
--- Comment #23 from Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de
2009-01-11 20:02:48 EDT ---
The requirements are still not correct. It often makes sense to use file
dependencies, for some deps it is actually needed: /usr/bin/cdrecord and
/usr/bin/mkisofs can be provided by different packages but not only by wodim.
Also the name of a package might change over time as it did with
/usr/bin/logger, so it's better to require the file.
This is what I suggest:
Requires: /usr/bin/logger
Requires: /usr/bin/mkisofs
Requires: /usr/bin/cdrecord
Requires: bc
Requires: bzip2
Requires: coreutils
Requires: diffutils
Requires: dvd+rw-tools
Requires: less
Requires: ftp
Requires: genisoimage
Requires: gettext
Requires: gnupg
Requires: gzip
Requires: openssh-clients
Requires: rsync
Requires: sed
Requires: tar
Requires: which
I also removed zip, because I doubt someone will use zip archives for backups
as they can't store permissions. lzma and dar are also not very common, so I
wouldn't add them. I would also remove rsync, but this is your decision.
Please replace %{_var}/lib/ with %{_localstatedir} in your spec.
Hint: If you want to use a macro like %{_var}/lib/ in the changelog, you need
to escape it as %%{_var}/lib/, not _{_var}/lib/
You have added %{_var}/lib/%{name} to the %files list, but you also need to
create the dir during install, otherwise it wont get included in the package.
Please remove the It just works. from the description, because we don't want
these kind of advertising in our packages.
Some trivial typos in changelog: Fixe - Fix
No no need for making a new package now, just fix the spec and post the link
here. I will look after the patch to get rid of the hardcoded patch in the
meantime. Stay tuned.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476404] Review Request: bullet - 3D Collision Detection and Rigid Body Dynamics Library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476404 Bruno Mahe br...@gnoll.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(br...@gnoll.org) | --- Comment #3 from Bruno Mahe br...@gnoll.org 2009-01-11 20:21:15 EDT --- pong. I was on vacation and didn't had time to work on it. I am back and going to finish it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
