[Bug 479793] Review Request: cpphs - A liberalised re-implementation of cpp, the C pre-processor
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=479793
Jens Petersen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #9 from Jens Petersen 2009-01-20 02:42:34
EDT ---
Thanks for the update. :)
One last tweak: you can remove this line I think:
Requires(postun): ghc = %{ghc_version}
it is now taken care of by the doc requires(postun).
With that the package is 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 480050] Review Request: libchamplain - Map view for Clutter
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=480050 Peter Robinson changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pbrobin...@gmail.com --- Comment #8 from Peter Robinson 2009-01-20 02:42:37 EDT --- Also builds fine on all dist-f11 rawhide platforms http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1068024 -- 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 459948] Review Request: libhildon - Hildon Application Framework - shared libraries
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=459948 Peter Robinson changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||462851 -- 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 480727] Review Request: daemontools: is a collection of tools for managing UNIX services.
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=480727 --- Comment #4 from Ralf Corsepius 2009-01-20 02:26:57 EDT --- Sorry, comment #3 was addressing djbdns (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724) Re-adding comment there. -- 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 480724] Review Request: djbdns - A Domain Name System by D. J. Bernstein
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=480724 Ralf Corsepius changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rc040...@freenet.de --- Comment #2 from Ralf Corsepius 2009-01-20 02:27:09 EDT --- Some remarks: This package will need a lot of love to let it pass a review. * %files .. /usr/local/etc/* /usr/local/bin/* => Distro packages must not contrain files below /usr/local * Package doesn't seem to honor RPM_OPT_FLAGS. * *.tar.gz doesn't match upstream (http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/djbdns-1.05.tar.gz) * I can't spot any license (I am not sure, but haven't there been some legal issues with DJB's works?). Blocking FE-LEGAL. Finally: Does this package still have an active upstream? I thought, DJB discontinued all his works. -- 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 480724] Review Request: djbdns - A Domain Name System by D. J. Bernstein
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=480724 Ralf Corsepius changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||182235 -- 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 253813] Package Review: cjkunifonts (split from fonts-chinese) [renamed to cjkuni-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=253813 --- Comment #39 from Jens Petersen 2009-01-20 02:30:46 EDT --- Nicolas, then better to open new review bugs IMHO than reopening old reviews for 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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for 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=476471 --- Comment #35 from Jens Petersen 2009-01-20 02:19:05 EDT --- > At the risk of sounding dumb... Why are version numbers bad? If anything the > "11" is something I don't like but the version "1.0-7" seems like a really > good > idea. Yep, the version number in the package name itself is bad... ie the "-11" part in the Name field: Name: fedora-security-guide-11-en-US This has already come up several times in the review. Source (base) package names are stable in fedora over releases. (I am happy to discuss the packaging on irc if I can make things clearer.) > I can manually remove it from the package if that makes everything right. That would help. -- 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 #36 from Guillaume Kulakowski 2009-01-20 02:12:30 EDT --- @Christoph > Your review is finish ? The review is approve ? Because this review block my sponsorships and the pidgin-privacy-please integration... -- 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 253813] Package Review: cjkunifonts (split from fonts-chinese) [renamed to cjkuni-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=253813 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||Reopened Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|CURRENTRELEASE | --- Comment #38 from Nicolas Mailhot 2009-01-20 02:13:01 EDT --- fedora-review+ ⇒ will review the cjkunifonts changes anyway and it's easier for me if they're done directly with the new srpm name in the new srpm component before the review (and not the reverse) -- 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 480727] Review Request: daemontools: is a collection of tools for managing UNIX services.
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=480727 Ralf Corsepius changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rc040...@freenet.de Blocks||182235 --- Comment #3 from Ralf Corsepius 2009-01-20 02:16:16 EDT --- Some remarks: This package will need a lot of love to let it pass a review. * %files .. /usr/local/etc/* /usr/local/bin/* => Distro packages must not contrain files below /usr/local * Package doesn't seem to honor RPM_OPT_FLAGS. * *.tar.gz doesn't match upstream (http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/djbdns-1.05.tar.gz) * I can't spot any license (I am not sure, but haven't there been some legal issues with DJB's works?). Blocking FE-LEGAL. Finally: Does this package still have an active upstream? I thought, DJB discontinued all his works. -- 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 480727] Review Request: daemontools: is a collection of tools for managing UNIX services.
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=480727 --- Comment #2 from Mamoru Tasaka 2009-01-20 01:43:52 EDT --- I am the sponsor of the 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 480727] Review Request: daemontools: is a collection of tools for managing UNIX services.
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=480727 Itamar Reis Peixoto changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||480724 -- 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 480724] Review Request: djbdns - A Domain Name System by D. J. Bernstein
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=480724 Itamar Reis Peixoto changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||480727 -- 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 480727] Review Request: daemontools: is a collection of tools for managing UNIX services.
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=480727 --- Comment #1 from Itamar Reis Peixoto 2009-01-20 01:34:13 EDT --- this is your first 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 480727] Review Request: daemontools: is a collection of tools for managing UNIX services.
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=480727 Itamar Reis Peixoto changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ita...@ispbrasil.com.br 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 480724] Review Request: djbdns - A Domain Name System by D. J. Bernstein
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=480724 Itamar Reis Peixoto changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ita...@ispbrasil.com.br 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 480724] Review Request: djbdns - A Domain Name System by D. J. Bernstein
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=480724 --- Comment #1 from _pjp_ 2009-01-20 01:26:57 EDT --- Daemontools package is open for review at: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480727 -- 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 475116] Review Request: python-ldaphelper - a wrapper around python-ldap search results
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=475116 Jon Stanley changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Jon Stanley 2009-01-20 01:23:51 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: python-ldaphelper Short Description: A wrapper around LDAP search results Owners: jstanley Branches: EL-4 EL-5 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 480727] New: Review Request: daemontools: is a collection of tools for managing UNIX services.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: daemontools: is a collection of tools for managing UNIX services. Alias: daemontools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480727 Summary: Review Request: daemontools: is a collection of tools for managing UNIX services. Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: i386 URL: http://cr.yp.to/daemontools/ OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: pj.pan...@yahoo.co.in QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora daemontools is a collection of tools for managing UNIX services. supervise monitors a service. It starts the service and restarts the service if it dies. Setting up a new service is easy: all supervise needs is a directory with a run script that runs the service. multilog saves error messages to one or more logs. It optionally timestamps each line and, for each log, includes or excludes lines matching specified patterns. It automatically rotates logs to limit the amount of disk space used. If the disk fills up, it pauses and tries again, without losing any data. SPEC: http://pjp.dgplug.org/tools/daemontools.spec SORC: http://pjp.dgplug.org/tools/daemontools-0.76.tar.gz SRPM: http://pjp.dgplug.org/tools/daemontools-0.76-1.fc10.src.rpm Daemontools is required by another package called `djbdns', which is open for review at: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724 I hereby request the reviewers to vet both the packages. Thank you! -- 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 480724] New: Review Request: djbdns - A Domain Name System by D. J. Bernstein
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: djbdns - A Domain Name System by D. J. Bernstein Alias: djbdns https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724 Summary: Review Request: djbdns - A Domain Name System by D. J. Bernstein Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: i386 URL: http://pjp.dgplug.org/tools/djbdns-1.05.tar.gz OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: pj.pan...@yahoo.co.in QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora `djbdns' is a Domain Name System written by the eminent author of qmail, D. J. Bernstein. djbdns is also suppose to be utmost secure like qmail. SPEC: http://pjp.dgplug.org/tools/djbdns.spec SORC: http://pjp.dgplug.org/tools/djbdns-1.05.tar.gz SRPM: http://pjp.dgplug.org/tools/djbdns-1.05-1.fc10.src.rpm `djbdns' depends on another package called daemontools, which is again written by D J Bernstein. -- 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 480483] Review Request: gaupol - Subtitle editor
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=480483 Lucian Langa 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 480483] Review Request: gaupol - Subtitle editor
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=480483 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System 2009-01-20 00:57:22 EDT --- gaupol-0.13.1-1.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gaupol-0.13.1-1.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 480483] Review Request: gaupol - Subtitle editor
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=480483 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System 2009-01-20 00:58:10 EDT --- gaupol-0.13.1-1.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gaupol-0.13.1-1.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 477533] Review Request: rubygem-mechanize - A handy web browsing ruby object
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=477533
Mamoru Tasaka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #6 from Mamoru Tasaka 2009-01-20
00:26:33 EDT ---
Thank you.
(In reply to comment #5)
> > (In reply to comment #3)
> > > * The license file and the website license page say GPLv2+. The source
> > > code
> > > files do not indicate a license. I think setting the license as GPLc2+
> > > will be
> > > more appropriate.
> > - Well, what URL shows that this is under GPLv2"+"?
> > (note that I saw that rubyforge.org website says that this is
> >under GPLv2, however I guess this license tag is automatically tagged
> >from license text. Moreover I saw that in many cases the license
> >tag on website is wrong)
> >
>
> On the bottom of the homepage for this gem:
> http://mechanize.rubyforge.org/mechanize/
> there is a LICENSE section. When I click on the LICENSE, it gives me the full
> text of GPLv2 (which has the "or later" clause).
>
> Don't you think we should believe the website?
- LICENSE section says this is just under GPL and the following link
shows just GPLv2 license text ("any later" clause is just a example
also written in "other" GPLv2 license text). So this does not
render this package to be under GPLv2.
New Package CVS Request
===
Package Name: rubygem-mechanize
Short Description:A handy web browsing ruby object
Owners: mtasaka
Branches: F-10 F-9
InitialCC:(nobody)
--
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 477883] Review Request: rubygem-nokogiri - An HTML, XML, SAX, and Reader parser
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=477883 Mamoru Tasaka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #7 from Mamoru Tasaka 2009-01-20 00:30:21 EDT --- Rebuilt on all branches, submitted push request for F-10/9, closing. Thank you for reviewing and CVS procedure. -- 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 477533] Review Request: rubygem-mechanize - A handy web browsing ruby object
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=477533 Bug 477533 depends on bug 477883, which changed state. Bug 477883 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-nokogiri - An HTML, XML, SAX, and Reader parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477883 What|Old Value |New Value 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 480373] Review Request: cilk - Language for multithreaded parallel programming.
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=480373 --- Comment #3 from Adam Miller 2009-01-20 00:21:56 EDT --- Spec URL: http://maxamillion.fedorapeople.org/cilk.spec SRPM URL: http://maxamillion.fedorapeople.org/cilk-5.4.6-2.src.rpm Fixed the license field and prematurely filed the request without running in mock, the %optflags are slapped into %configure and the '-pipe' is what is causing the failure in the package build. -- 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 480720] New: Review Request: gtk2-parasite - A GUI debugging tool for GTK+ applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: gtk2-parasite - A GUI debugging tool for GTK+ applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480720 Summary: Review Request: gtk2-parasite - A GUI debugging tool for GTK+ applications Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: ivazquez...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://ivazquez.fedorapeople.org/packages/gtk2-parasite/gtk2-parasite.spec SRPM URL: http://ivazquez.fedorapeople.org/packages/gtk2-parasite/gtk2-parasite-0-0.1.gitf485897d.src.rpm Description: Parasite is a debugging and development tool that runs inside your GTK+ application's process. It can inspect your application, giving you detailed information on your UI, such as the hierarchy, X window IDs, widget properties, and more. You can modify properties on the fly in order to experiment with the look of your UI. Parasite includes an embedded Python shell that lets you write new code that directly interacts with your application's UI, regardless of the language the application is written in. Create new dialogs, attach temporary signal handlers to buttons, test out new logic, and gather additional debug information. -- 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 479793] Review Request: cpphs - A liberalised re-implementation of cpp, the C pre-processor
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=479793 --- Comment #8 from Conrad Meyer 2009-01-19 23:59:04 EDT --- http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SPECS/cpphs.spec http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SRPMS/cpphs-1.6-4.fc9.src.rpm Now with separate -doc subpackage. -- 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 225707] Merge Review: dosfstools
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=225707 --- Comment #7 from Parag AN(पराग) 2009-01-19 23:33:43 EDT --- As already suggested in comment #4 and from %files section it will not be good to have this package installing 2 directories /usr/share/doc/dosfstools /usr/share/doc/dosfstools-3.0.1 That should be either one. Please update SPEC and build new package. Best you can do as suggested in comment #4 is to write mv COPYING ChangeLog doc/ to %prep -- 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 226463] Merge Review: system-config-netboot
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=226463 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo? --- Comment #10 from Parag AN(पराग) 2009-01-19 23:34:24 EDT --- ping? -- 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 225908] Merge Review: iptstate
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=225908 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Parag AN(पराग) 2009-01-19 23:29:50 EDT --- APPROVED. As approved package is already in rawhide, I am closing this review now. -- 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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for 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=476471 --- Comment #34 from Eric Christensen 2009-01-19 23:00:49 EDT --- (In reply to comment #33) > The package name still contains the version number which is bad. > > How about fedora-security-guide-en-US-11-7.fc10 ? At the risk of sounding dumb... Why are version numbers bad? If anything the "11" is something I don't like but the version "1.0-7" seems like a really good idea. I've already filed a ticket against the "11" part (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478950) but not sure where that is. I can manually remove it from the package if that makes everything right. -- 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 479803] Review Request: haskell-packaging - RPM macros and spec templates for Haskell
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=479803 --- Comment #6 from Jens Petersen 2009-01-19 23:01:29 EDT --- Spec URL: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/haskell-packaging/haskell-packaging.spec SRPM URL: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/haskell-packaging/haskell-packaging-0.4-2.fc10.src.rpm Noarch: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/haskell-packaging/haskell-packaging-0.4-2.fc10.noarch.rpm * Tue Jan 20 2009 Jens Petersen - 0.4-2 - remove old todo comments about splitting and ghc dep -- 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 479803] Review Request: haskell-packaging - RPM macros and spec templates for Haskell
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=479803 --- Comment #5 from Jens Petersen 2009-01-19 22:52:13 EDT --- Still open to improvements to 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 479803] Review Request: haskell-packaging - RPM macros and spec templates for Haskell
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=479803 --- Comment #4 from Jens Petersen 2009-01-19 22:51:26 EDT --- Spec URL: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/haskell-packaging/haskell-packaging.spec SRPM URL: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/haskell-packaging/haskell-packaging-0.4-1.fc10.src.rpm Noarch: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/haskell-packaging/haskell-packaging-0.4-1.fc10.noarch.rpm Templates and cabal2spec have been removed from ghc-6.10.1-7.fc11 so this should now install. * Tue Jan 20 2009 Jens Petersen - 0.4-1 - move ghc_version back to templates for now - leave macros.ghc in ghc - require ghc -- 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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for 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=476471 --- Comment #33 from Jens Petersen 2009-01-19 22:33:38 EDT --- The package name still contains the version number which is bad. How about fedora-security-guide-en-US-11-7.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 476471] Review Request: fedora-security-guide - A security guide for 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=476471 --- Comment #32 from Eric Christensen 2009-01-19 21:44:36 EDT --- Updated the files... Builds clean, still. SPEC URL: http://sparks.fedorapeople.org/fedora-security-guide-11-en-US.spec SRPM URL: http://sparks.fedorapeople.org/fedora-security-guide-11-en-US-1.0-7.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 467384] Review Request: mingw32-nsis - Nullsoft Scriptable Install System
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=467384 --- Comment #4 from Kevin Kofler 2009-01-19 20:48:12 EDT --- For the optflags, I have this patch: http://svn.calcforge.org/viewvc/fedora/nsis/nsis-2.34-RPM_OPT_FLAGS.diff?revision=2&root=repo-specfiles&view=markup in my old packages, but it's for an old version (2.34) and I also haven't checked yet that it doesn't break the cross-built parts (my old packages didn't build the W32 stuff from source). -- 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 480646] Review Request: urlwatch - A tool for monitoring webpages for updates
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=480646 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System 2009-01-19 19:02:02 EDT --- urlwatch-1.7-2.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/urlwatch-1.7-2.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 480646] Review Request: urlwatch - A tool for monitoring webpages for updates
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=480646 --- Comment #8 from Fabian Affolter 2009-01-19 19:03:53 EDT --- Thanks for the review and the 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 480646] Review Request: urlwatch - A tool for monitoring webpages for updates
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=480646 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System 2009-01-19 19:02:05 EDT --- urlwatch-1.7-2.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/urlwatch-1.7-2.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 478470] Review Request: mrpt - The Mobile Robot Programming Toolkit (MRPT)
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=478470 --- Comment #16 from Jose Luis 2009-01-19 19:05:41 EDT --- Ok, copy that. -- 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 253813] Package Review: cjkunifonts (split from fonts-chinese) [renamed to cjkuni-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=253813 Jens Petersen 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 253813] Package Review: cjkunifonts (split from fonts-chinese) [renamed to cjkuni-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=253813 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Package Review: cjkunifonts |Package Review: cjkunifonts |(split from fonts-chinese) |(split from fonts-chinese) ||[renamed to cjkuni-fonts] -- 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 253813] Package Review: cjkunifonts (split from fonts-chinese)
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=253813 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|Reopened| Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||fedora-fonts-bugs-l...@redh ||at.com Resolution||CURRENTRELEASE AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|peter...@redhat.com -- 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 253813] Package Review: cjkunifonts (split from fonts-chinese)
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=253813 Caius CHANCE 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 253813] Package Review: cjkunifonts (split from fonts-chinese)
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=253813 Jens Petersen 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 253813] Package Review: cjkunifonts (split from fonts-chinese)
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=253813 --- Comment #37 from Caius CHANCE 2009-01-19 18:38:54 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: cjkuni-fonts Short Description: Chinese, Japanese, Korean Unicode TrueType fonts. Owners: cchance Branches: devel InitialCC: fonts-sig -- 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 480356] Review Request: mythes-mi - Maori thesaurus
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=480356 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #3 from Kevin Fenzi 2009-01-19 18:22:25 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 225999] Merge Review: libdrm
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=225999 --- Comment #5 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil 2009-01-19 18:22:55 EDT --- So, my initial request is still valid. Could you update to the latest version so that we can have a proper review? -- 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 245080] Review Request: libntlm - library that implement NTLM authentication derived from Samba sources.
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=245080 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #9 from Kevin Fenzi 2009-01-19 18:23:42 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 245120] Review Request: libgsasl - includes support for the SASL framework
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=245120 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #11 from Kevin Fenzi 2009-01-19 18:24:55 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 480355] Review Request: mythes-it - Italian thesaurus
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=480355 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #3 from Kevin Fenzi 2009-01-19 18:21:41 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 243631] Review Request: msmtp - an SMTP client
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=243631 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #46 from Kevin Fenzi 2009-01-19 18:23:13 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 461277] Package Review Request: radial
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=461277 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #5 from Kevin Fenzi 2009-01-19 18:19:54 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 480483] Review Request: gaupol - Subtitle editor
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=480483 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #3 from Kevin Fenzi 2009-01-19 18:20:59 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 472792] Review Request: jempbox - A Java library that implements Adobe's XMP specification
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=472792 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||182235 --- Comment #4 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski 2009-01-19 18:16:31 EDT --- We should have RH Legal look at it just in case. Blocking FE-Legal for now. -- 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 468797] Review Request: jrosetta - A common base to build a graphical console
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=468797 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #11 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski 2009-01-19 18:04:43 EDT --- Very nice, 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 480591] Review Request: ctan-kerkis-fonts - Kerkis type 1 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=480591 --- Comment #2 from Nicolas Mailhot 2009-01-19 18:05:01 EDT --- 1. needs _texmf_main defined like cm-lgc 2. rpmlint complains of mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs 3. kerkis calligraphic and the small caps variants clearly needs their own subpackage. Please make sure you only group in the same font subpackage fonts of the same family (differing only in weight, width or slant). I didn't check the others 4. the main package does not need to Requires: fontpackages-filesystem 5. It's probably a good idea to add fontconfig substitution rules for the URW fonts kerkis is derived of, assuming the Kerkis creators didn't change the design and metrics too much (cf the substitution template in filepackages-devel) 6. please try to get you fontconfig files merged in upstream kerkis once you're happy with them 7. please add your new fonts subpackages to comps http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Comps_fonts_rules 8. you obsoletes should be Obsoletes: tetex-font-kerkis < 2.0-17 to provide an upgrade path to the F10 kerkis package, so this version does not pass rename 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 478398] Review Request: httping - Ping alike tool for http requests
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=478398 --- Comment #6 from Fabian Affolter 2009-01-19 18:02:25 EDT --- Manuel, thanks for the patch and the reworked spec file. Here are the new files: Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/httping.spec SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/httping-1.2.9-2.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 464781] Review Request: flexdock - Java docking UI element. First package.
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=464781 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 | --- Comment #24 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski 2009-01-19 17:57:01 EDT --- Removing FE-NEEDSPONSOR, as you are already sponsored. -- 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 477883] Review Request: rubygem-nokogiri - An HTML, XML, SAX, and Reader parser
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=477883 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #6 from Kevin Fenzi 2009-01-19 17:59:53 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 478565] Review Request: gupnp-igd - Library to handle UPnP IGD port mapping
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=478565 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #4 from Kevin Fenzi 2009-01-19 17:58:44 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 480646] Review Request: urlwatch - A tool for monitoring webpages for updates
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=480646 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #5 from Kevin Fenzi 2009-01-19 18:01:04 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 464781] Review Request: flexdock - Java docking UI element. First package.
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=464781 --- Comment #23 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski 2009-01-19 17:55:25 EDT --- Some comments before full review: Why do you have: BuildArch: i386 BuildArch: x86-64 BuildArch: ppc in the spec? BuildArch: can only be specified once, so merge these three. Otherwise it fails with: $ rpmbuild -bb flexdock.spec error: No compatible architectures found for build x86-64 is not a valid arch designation, by the way. You should use x86_64. I think you should use ExcludeArch: ppc64 to disable the unsupported arch instead and open a bug for that (blocking FE-ExcludeArch-ppc64 tracker bug). Fails to build in mock on rawhide/i386: [...] ++ build-classpath jgoodies-looks skinlf /usr/bin/build-classpath: error: Could not find jgoodies-looks Java extension for this JVM /usr/bin/build-classpath: error: Could not find skinlf Java extension for this JVM /usr/bin/build-classpath: error: Some specified jars were not found [...] You seem to have forgotten to add these as BuildRequires as well. Once the above are fixed, it builds in mock, but rpmlint output is not clean: $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock//fedora-rawhide-i386/result flexdock-debuginfo.i386: E: empty-debuginfo-package flexdock.src:157: E: files-attr-not-set flexdock.src:158: E: files-attr-not-set flexdock.src:159: E: files-attr-not-set 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 0 warnings. You need to fix that. According to Java Packaging Guidelines, you're installing the files in the wrong location. Please fix that. Also, the specfile has lots of trailing whitespace and inconsistent usage of spaces and tabs for indentation. Please fix that, too. -- 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 480037] Review Request: cups-pk-helper - PolicyKit support for system-config-printer
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=480037 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #9 from Kevin Fenzi 2009-01-19 17:56:15 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 477533] Review Request: rubygem-mechanize - A handy web browsing ruby object
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=477533 Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil 2009-01-19 17:43:34 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) > Thank you for initial comments. > You're welcome. > (In reply to comment #3) > > * The license file and the website license page say GPLv2+. The source code > > files do not indicate a license. I think setting the license as GPLc2+ will > > be > > more appropriate. > - Well, what URL shows that this is under GPLv2"+"? > (note that I saw that rubyforge.org website says that this is >under GPLv2, however I guess this license tag is automatically tagged >from license text. Moreover I saw that in many cases the license >tag on website is wrong) > On the bottom of the homepage for this gem: http://mechanize.rubyforge.org/mechanize/ there is a LICENSE section. When I click on the LICENSE, it gives me the full text of GPLv2 (which has the "or later" clause). Don't you think we should believe the website? > > * Latest version must be packaged. I can't find any information to confirm > > this. Where is download section on the website? > - See: http://gems.rubyforge.org/gems/ > Yeah I tried to go there before and got a 403 mirror. I guess I hit to a bad mirror. Now I confirm that 0.9.0 is the latest version. Everything else is fine. This package (rubygem-mechanize) is APPROVED by oget -- 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 480103] Review Request: bnIRC - An ncurses based IRC client and modular IRC framework.(Need Sponsorship. First time Packager)
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=480103 --- Comment #5 from Fabian Affolter 2009-01-19 17:40:49 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=329407) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=329407) rpmlint output There are still some issues. - From my point of view, the name should be bnirc.spec https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Case_Sensitivity https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Spec_file_name - One line per BR would be nice - The %file section needs some work - duplicates - ownership - You need to make a devel subpackage - *.la files must be deleted https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries The rpmlint output [...@laptop024 i386]$ rpmlint bnIRC* bnIRC.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/src/debug/bnIRC-1.1.1/plugins/server_strings/server_strings.c bnIRC.i386: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/bnirc.debug bnIRC.i386: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/bnirc.debug 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 22 errors, 75 warnings. see attachment for full details -- 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 480589] Review Request: ctan-cm-lgc-fonts - CM-LGC Type1 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=480589
--- Comment #2 from Nicolas Mailhot 2009-01-19
17:32:04 EDT ---
1. you need a
%define _texmf_main %{_datadir}/texmf
or import it from something you buildrequires (I assume the _ means you intend
to import it from some central package)
2. the main package does not need to
Requires: fontpackages-filesystem
3. didn't check if all the font names were accounted for in the fontconfig
rules
You should probably test if the recipe Behdad suggested in
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18724
works for you and manages to create a single unicode font from all the local
type one variants of each font family
That being said the obsoletes work and that's all I'm supposed to check in a
rename review, so
❱❱❱ APPROVED ❰❰❰
Please don't forget to add your fonts subpackages to comps
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Comps_fonts_rules
--
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 480589] Review Request: ctan-cm-lgc-fonts - CM-LGC Type1 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=480589 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nicolas.mail...@laposte.net |paska...@di.uoa.gr 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 225854] Merge Review: gperf
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=225854 --- Comment #3 from Robert Scheck 2009-01-19 17:28:26 EDT --- Roman, thank you for taking action. I think, I've forgotten the suggestion of preserving timestamps before and to avoid the usage of %makeinstall, thus we recommend packagers to use instead: make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT install INSTALL='install -p' Regarding the documentation I'm not really happy. We've currently much more documentation rather rest of gperf inside of the package. We've multiple options: Creating -docs subpackage and moving everything out there OR just kill the huge *.ps from %doc (*.ps vs. *.pdf seems to be a bit redundant and *.pdf is usually better searchable) - last of it was accepted and got told to be useful in Freenode #fedora-devel, #fedora-de by several packagers. Choose what you like as packager and let me know. I can deal with both or even a better option - afterwards we should be (hopefully) fine with review. -- 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 475097] Review Request: gimp-fourier-plugin - A fourier transformation plugin for GIMP.
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=475097 --- Comment #4 from Fabian Deutsch 2009-01-19 17:05:20 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > I contacted the author, he'll include the missing license informations in > > the > > next release. > > Does this mean that the upstream is going to release the new version > in a short time? There was just a new version released upstream and updated the SRPM and spec files. http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/~fabiand/fedora/fourier/gimp-fourier-plugin-0.3.2-1.fc9.src.rpm http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/~fabiand/fedora/fourier/gimp-fourier-plugin.spec As of http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=568351 I also introduced a small hack to get around it. Koji scratch build ran fine. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1067281 -- 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 478769] Review Request: spring-installer - Installer for the Spring game's maps and mods
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=478769 Aurelien Bompard changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(ianwel...@gmail.c ||om) --- Comment #7 from Aurelien Bompard 2009-01-19 16:23:42 EDT --- News from the author: we now have a fixed download location, and he worked on making the package more portable. Here's the new SRPM : http://gauret.free.fr/fichiers/rpms/fedora/spring/spring-installer-20090119-1.fc10.src.rpm Note that the package does not contain a license file, I've notified the author. -- 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 480646] Review Request: urlwatch - A tool for monitoring webpages for updates
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=480646 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Fabian Affolter 2009-01-19 16:00:55 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: urlwatch Short Description: A tool for monitoring webpages for updates 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 480646] Review Request: urlwatch - A tool for monitoring webpages for updates
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=480646 --- Comment #3 from Fabian Affolter 2009-01-19 16:00:10 EDT --- Itamar, you are right the license seems more to match the 'New BSD (no advertising, 3 clause)' than MIT. I will change the license tag to BSD before cvs import. -- 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 226210] Merge Review: opal
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=226210 Tom "spot" Callaway changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||182235 --- Comment #12 from Tom "spot" Callaway 2009-01-19 15:54:35 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) > Sorry to bother you again, but, please, provide more explanations - it still > not clear for some people, whether iLBC legal or not. > > Opal ships this implementation of RFC3951 ( http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3951 > ), which distributes under very strange license: > > http://www.ilbcfreeware.org/documentation/gips_iLBClicense.pdf > > See also this thread: > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.devel/90195 > > We already removed iLBC support from Asterisk - can we re-add this support > back? Sorry for the delay. Red Hat Legal got this one wrong (it happens to everyone sometimes). The iLBC codec needs to be removed from the opal tarball. Reblocking FE-Legal. -- 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 478941] Review Request: celt - An audio codec for use in low-delay speech and audio communication
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=478941 Ray Strode changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rstr...@redhat.com --- Comment #4 from Ray Strode 2009-01-19 14:58:23 EDT --- Any updates on this, Peter? -- 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 480567] Review Request: dnssec-conf - DNSSEC and DLV configuration and priming 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=480567
Jochen Schmitt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||joc...@herr-schmitt.de
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|joc...@herr-schmitt.de
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Jochen Schmitt 2009-01-19
14:54:51 EDT ---
God:
+ Basename of the SPEC files matches with package name
+ Name of the package fits naming guidelines
+ Package contains most recent release
+ Package contains valid License tag
+ License tag contains GPLv2+ as a valid OSS license
+ License review on source files state, that GPLv2 may be
+ Package contains a verbatin copy of the license text
+ Package has no subpackages
+ Local buidl works fine
+ Package contains %clean stanza
+ Buildroot will be deleted on the beginning of %clean and %install
+ Local install works fine
+ Local uninstall works fine
+ Start of dnssec-conf without argument works witoht crash
+ Build on koji works fine
+ Rpmlint has no complaints about the source package
+ Rpmlint has no complaints about the binary package
+ Files has proper file permissions
+ All packaged files belong to the package
+ Package contains no files belong to other packages
+ %doc subpackage has a small amont, so we need no separate doc subpackage
+ Package contains proper %changelog
Bad.
- source tag not fully quallified
- Package use $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot}
- License review on source files state, that GPLv2 may be
right value for the license tag
TODO:
- Please notify upstream, that eatch source file should have
a proper copyright notice
--
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 467384] Review Request: mingw32-nsis - Nullsoft Scriptable Install System
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=467384 --- Comment #3 from Richard W.M. Jones 2009-01-19 14:52:11 EDT --- Sorry, I meant to get round to this one today, but I've run out of time. I will attempt to look at it tomorrow morning. -- 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 467396] Review Request: mingw32-freetype - Free and portable font rendering engine
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=467396 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|467416 | -- 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 467416] Review Request: mingw32-cairo - MinGW Windows Cairo 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=467416 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on|467396, 467413 |478640, 467325, 454416 --- Comment #9 from Richard W.M. Jones 2009-01-19 14:44:24 EDT --- Spec URL: http://hg.et.redhat.com/cgi-bin/hg-misc.cgi/fedora-mingw--devel/file/tip/cairo/mingw32-cairo.spec SRPM URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/mingw/fedora-10/src/SRPMS/mingw32-cairo-1.8.0-3.fc10.src.rpm * Mon Jan 19 2009 Richard W.M. Jones - 1.8.0-3 - Include license file in documentation section. - Disable building static library to save time. - Remove BRs on mingw32-fontconfig and mingw32-freetype which are not needed on Win32. - Use _smp_mflags. - Added BRs mingw32-dlfcn, mingw32-iconv, mingw32-zlib. -- 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 454416] Review Request: mingw32-zlib - MinGW Windows zlib compression 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=454416 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||467416 -- 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 478640] Review Request: mingw32-dlfcn - Implements a wrapper for dlfcn (dlopen dlclose dlsym dlerror)
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=478640 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||467416 -- 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 467325] Review Request: mingw32-iconv - GNU libraries and utilities for character set conversion
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=467325 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||467416 -- 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 467413] Review Request: mingw32-fontconfig - MinGW Windows Fontconfig 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=467413 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|467416 | -- 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 478769] Review Request: spring-installer - Installer for the Spring game's maps and mods
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=478769 --- Comment #6 from Aurelien Bompard 2009-01-19 14:41:26 EDT --- > * Not sure about grabbing the data from what appears to be part of their > filesystem that is laid out to fit neatly into the ubuntu repository. Might be > a bit too dynamic... The Git repository sounds like a much better idea. Actually, the tarballs are better to check that I'm not introducing malware in Fedora. With a Git clone, it would be a little harder to check, and the SCM has already changed in the past. I have contacted the author about this, so hopefully he's aware of this issue. > * I think offering an installer for a TA mod "CA" may have licencing issues. > TA is copyright of what used to be infogrames, which i know think is Atari. > The content that this installer obtains is probably copyright protected, as I > undesrtand that Complete Annihilation uses TA game data. The package does not contain the copyrighted files, you still have to download them by hand. The CA installer does not download them. > * Is specifying the content of the sub-package in the main package description > normal? I have not seen this before, and it strikes me as a touch confusing. Oops, no, that's a cut-n-paste mistake. Good catch ! > * Using chrpath to remove hardcoding of path information is considered a last > resort option [1]. Consider patching the build system to remove invocations > to chrpath. It looks like it very very hard to remove rpath with ocaml. I've search the web but the only available option seems to use chrpath. If you find a cleaner way, I'm interested of course. -- 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 480646] Review Request: urlwatch - A tool for monitoring webpages for updates
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=480646 Itamar Reis Peixoto changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ita...@ispbrasil.com.br --- Comment #2 from Itamar Reis Peixoto 2009-01-19 14:34:14 EDT --- the license stated in urlwatch website is another. http://thpinfo.com/2008/urlwatch/ "License urlwatch is released under the terms of the BSD license" why MIT in spec 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 475055] Review Request: gfan - Software for Compu ting Gröbner Fans and Tropical Varieties
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=475055 --- Comment #26 from Conrad Meyer 2009-01-19 14:35:59 EDT --- 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 478743] Review Request: saga - SAGA is a free, hybrid, cross-platform GIS 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=478743
--- Comment #3 from Jerry James 2009-01-19 14:15:17 EDT
---
It turns out that adding --disable-static isn't enough. Your attempt to use
the system libtool wasn't quite right. You need to pass the -f flag to
autoreconf, and throw away the first of your two sed invocations. That it, the
%build section should contain this:
autoreconf -i -f
sed -i -e 's|SG_T(\"LD_LIBRARY_PATH\")|SG_T(\"%{_libdir}\")|g' \
src/saga_core/saga_api/module_library.cpp
%configure --enable-unicode --disable-static
make %{?_smp_mflags}
Even then, rpmlint shows that there are still some problems in this package.
This is what I get:
saga.x86_64: E: standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/bin
saga.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib64/libsaga_api.so.0.0.0
saga.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib64/libsaga_api.so.0.0.0
saga.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/saga-2.0.3/AUTHORS
saga.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/saga-2.0.3/NEWS
saga.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/saga-2.0.3/ChangeLog
saga.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/saga-2.0.3/README
saga.x86_64: E: no-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/libsaga_api.so.0.0.0
saga.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libsaga_api.so.0.0.0
/usr/lib64/libwx_gtk2u_richtext-2.8.so.0
saga.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libsaga_api.so.0.0.0
/usr/lib64/libwx_gtk2u_aui-2.8.so.0
saga.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libsaga_api.so.0.0.0
/usr/lib64/libwx_gtk2u_xrc-2.8.so.0
saga.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libsaga_api.so.0.0.0
/usr/lib64/libwx_gtk2u_qa-2.8.so.0
saga.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libsaga_api.so.0.0.0
/usr/lib64/libwx_gtk2u_html-2.8.so.0
saga.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libsaga_api.so.0.0.0
/usr/lib64/libwx_gtk2u_adv-2.8.so.0
saga.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libsaga_api.so.0.0.0
/usr/lib64/libwx_baseu_xml-2.8.so.0
saga.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libsaga_api.so.0.0.0
/usr/lib64/libwx_baseu_net-2.8.so.0
Finally, I see in the build output that there are a number of incorrect printf
directives in this program. They may cause no harm, but it is probably worth
checking whether they will cause any trouble. Look for warnings of the form:
warning: format '%FLAG' expects type 'TYPE1' but argument N has type 'TYPE2'
Some of those look like they will print integers incorrectly on 64-bit
platforms.
Can you fix all of this and roll a new package so I don't get confused as to
what you have and what I changed? Thanks. If you need a hand with any of it,
let me know.
--
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 480646] Review Request: urlwatch - A tool for monitoring webpages for updates
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=480646 Jochen Schmitt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||joc...@herr-schmitt.de AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|joc...@herr-schmitt.de Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Jochen Schmitt 2009-01-19 14:12:01 EDT --- God: + Basename of SPEC file matches with package name + Package name fits with maming guidelines + Consistently usage of rpm macros + Package contains no subpackages + Source tar ball could downloaed via spectool + Tar ball in package matches with upstream (md5sum: 29b3a00caad5f45c905ec621bec26687) + Package contains valid License tag + License tag has MIT as an valid OSS license + Package contains verbatin copy of the license text + Buildroot will be clean on the beginning of %install and %clean + Package has a %clean stanza + Local buidl works fine. + Local install works fine + Simple call to urlwatch works without crash + Local uninstall works fine + Build on koji works fine + Package will be build as noarch + Rpmlint has no complaints for source rpm + Rpmlint has no complaints for binary rpm + Files has proper file permissions + All packaged files are owned by the package + No packaged files are claimed by other packages + %doc stanza has small amount of files, so we need no separate doc subpackage *** 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 479832] Review Request: mmpong - a massively multiplayer pong game
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=479832 --- Comment #5 from Mamoru Tasaka 2009-01-19 13:43:09 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) > Unfortunately `rpmlint -a` seems to crash on my systems Anyway I reported this issue as bug 480664. -- 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 480538] Review Request: iptux -- a tool for sharing and transporting files and directories in Lan
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=480538 --- Comment #4 from Liang Suilong 2009-01-19 13:28:38 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=329375) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=329375) a new iptux specfile Now I fix the problems and build RPMs again in my machine. After that, I create a new directory and copy packages and specfile to test by rpmlint in CLI. The result is that: [fed...@fedora-desktop iptux]$ ls -a . iptux-0.4.4-1.fc10.i386.rpm iptux-debuginfo-0.4.4-1.fc10.i386.rpm .. iptux-0.4.4-1.fc10.src.rpm iptux.spec [fed...@fedora-desktop iptux]$ rpmlint -a * 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/share/rpmlint/rpmlint.py", line 295, in main() File "/usr/share/rpmlint/rpmlint.py", line 139, in main for item in ts.IDTXload(): AttributeError: 'rpm.ts' object has no attribute 'IDTXload' Is it OK now? Should I correct AttributeError? If it needs to be fixed, I do not know how to fix the AttributeError exactly. Could you help me? I upload a new iptux specfile as an attachment. You can download it and see it. At last, how can I find a sponsor to sponsor 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 480538] Review Request: iptux -- a tool for sharing and transporting files and directories in Lan
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=480538 --- Comment #5 from Liang Suilong 2009-01-19 13:31:13 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=329376) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=329376) iptux srpm I also upload an iptux SRPM. -- 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 478470] Review Request: mrpt - The Mobile Robot Programming Toolkit (MRPT)
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=478470 --- Comment #15 from Mamoru Tasaka 2009-01-19 13:30:12 EDT --- Well, I have not checked your latest srpm yet (currently I just verified that your latest srpm builds), however: - NOTE: Before being sponsored: This package will may be accepted with another few work (in fact I have not checked your latest srpm yet...) 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 451298] Review Request: purple-msn-pecan - Alternative MSN protocol plugin for libpurple
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=451298 Mamoru Tasaka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |pidgin-msn-pecan - |purple-msn-pecan - |Alternative MSN protocol|Alternative MSN protocol |plugin for libpurple|plugin for libpurple Alias|pidgin-msn-pecan|purple-msn-pecan Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #24 from Mamoru Tasaka 2009-01-19 12:57:23 EDT --- Okay, now this pacakge itself is good. So: - NOTE: Before being sponsored: This package will be accepted with another few (or no) 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 478007] Review Request: vmware-requirements - Installs packages needed for VMware's virtualization programs to run
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=478007 François Kooman changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fkoo...@tuxed.net --- Comment #10 from François Kooman 2009-01-19 12:46:20 EDT --- Is it not an option to create an installation instructions document on the wiki, or propose for the VMware website, that states the packages you need to install on x86_64 / i386 before installing VMware (server)? -- 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 475055] Review Request: gfan - Software for Compu ting Gröbner Fans and Tropical Varieties
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=475055 Luke Macken changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lmac...@redhat.com --- Comment #25 from Luke Macken 2009-01-19 12:40:11 EDT --- The bodhi issue should be fixed. There was a stray PackageBuild lying around, without the corresponding PackageUpdate. You should be able to re-submit it without problems. -- 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 478743] Review Request: saga - SAGA is a free, hybrid, cross-platform GIS 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=478743 --- Comment #2 from Jerry James 2009-01-19 12:17:59 EDT --- Sorry, I read the spec file incorrectly. You are excluding the .la files. So I've added --disable-static to my copy of the spec file to get a clean build and will base a review on that. -- 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
