[Bug 190267] Review Request: raidem-music - Background music for the game raidem
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: raidem-music - Background music for the game raidem https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190267 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-08 02:04 EST --- Oops sorry, I normally always close them I missed this one I also didn't see it on the Need cleanup part of the weekly automatic Fedora Status thingie, I guess I read over it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 171040] Review Request: postgis
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: postgis https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=171040 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-08 04:27 EST --- Had a look at the 1.1.1-1 spec 1) Please remove the patch that is not used, the patch0-line and the old make line 2) This pacakge does not install shared libraries in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, so ldconfig should not be called. on post and postun 3) Include a reference to where to download the release .tar.gz in the Source line http://postgis.refractions.net/ seems down at the moment, so I can't verify the package upstream. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188369] Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188369 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-08 04:37 EST --- So now the lib will be find again:) Here the package http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/qsmartcard/ctapi-cyberjack-2.0.8-9FC5.src.rpm?download -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190991] Review Request: libpar2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libpar2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190991 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-08 05:00 EST --- Some comments: 1. Minor issues: 1.1 # rpmlint *RPMS/libpar*.rpm E: libpar2-debuginfo script-without-shellbang /usr/src/debug/libpar2-0.2/galois.h E: libpar2-debuginfo script-without-shellbang /usr/src/debug/libpar2-0.2/par2repairersourcefile.cpp E: libpar2-debuginfo script-without-shellbang /usr/src/debug/libpar2-0.2/par2repairer.cpp E: libpar2-debuginfo script-without-shellbang /usr/src/debug/libpar2-0.2/par2repairersourcefile.h E: libpar2-debuginfo script-without-shellbang /usr/src/debug/libpar2-0.2/par1repairer.cpp E: libpar2-devel only-non-binary-in-usr-lib Most of these probably are caused by bogus permissions on source files. 1.2 Empty directory /usr/lib/libpar2 Is this package supposed to take plugins, there? 2. Major: This package's configuration (configure.ac/Makefile.am) is bugged: - configure.ac uses PKG_CHECK_MODULES(..sigc++..) but doesn't propagate the results to Makefile.am. Instead the Makefile explicitly links against -lstdc++. This violates g++'s working principles. Linking against -lstdc++ is a g++ internal detail. 3. Severe (Blocker): The package installs an autoheader (config.h) to a public directory (/usr/lib/libpar2/include/config.h). This file's contents will clash with other package's config headers and is a severe (must fix) design flaw of this package. A package must not install an autoheader. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190949] Review Request: gaim-gaym
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gaim-gaym https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190949 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-08 06:34 EST --- The src.rpm gives a 404 Just a quick note on the .spec file. The Requires: gtk2 is probably redundant. rpmbuild will normally find out the correct library dependencies automagically -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191036] Review Request: libmp4v2 a library for handling the mp4 container format
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libmp4v2 a library for handling the mp4 container format https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191036 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||177841 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190066] Review Request: php-pear-Mail
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-Mail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190066 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-08 07:11 EST --- The PHP package uses The PHP License in the License tag, please do the same (avoids one rpmlint error) Detail: in %install there is a php error message (it's just a notice, but there might be a real problem beneath): Notice: Undefined variable: php_dir in PEAR/Installer.php on line 1160 and 1161 Otherwise, it looks good to me. We'll have to wait until bug 190252 is fixed to publish it of course. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 186811] Review Request: libnfnetlink - Netfilter netlink userspace library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libnfnetlink - Netfilter netlink userspace library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=186811 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-08 07:44 EST --- So to my understanding there is nothing really preventing a release in extras, since the gpl-text can be added to the package without it being upstream as well for now. Or is there something I could do to actually move this topic (release in extras) forward? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191036] Review Request: libmp4v2 a library for handling the mp4 container format
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: libmp4v2 a library for handling the mp4 container
format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191036
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-08 07:47 EST ---
I can't sponsor, but some notes:
---
%files
%doc COPYING
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%{_bindir}/*
%{_libdir}/*.so.*
---
Normally - %doc goes below %defattr line
---
%files devel
%doc README TODO INTERNALS API_CHANGES
%doc %{_mandir}/man?/*
%{_includedir}/*.h
%{_libdir}/*.a
%{_libdir}/*.so
---
You nead a defattr line here.
Don't use %doc with %{_mandir} - it isn't necessary.
Don't package the static library (unless you know you need it)
I see shared libraries - but don't see ldconfig run in %post or %postun.
Changelog version refers to lvn - it should just be
1.4.1-1
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191036] Review Request: libmp4v2 a library for handling the mp4 container format
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libmp4v2 a library for handling the mp4 container format https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191036 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-08 07:53 EST --- On another note - this package will conflict with faad2 from rpm.livna.org -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 173459] Review Request: initng
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: initng https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=173459 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #128252|0 |1 is obsolete|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-08 08:30 EST --- Created an attachment (id=128739) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=128739action=view) initng 0.6.4-1 spec file - New upstream version - Added lib config flag to cmake - Removed CODING_STANDARDS and FAQ that doesn't exist anymore Anyone got any solution to the chicken-egg problem? Does initng-devel really need initng? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188369] Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188369
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-08 08:59 EST ---
What so you men with The pcsc ifd gets installed as /laibcyberjck_ifd.so which
is ofcourse not The file will not be direct under root.
on FC5 the file will be put in pkg-config libpcsclite
--variable=usbdropdir/laibcyberjck_ifd.so and on FC in
{_libdir}/readers/laibcyberjck_ifd.so
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187317] Review Request: mindi
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mindi https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187317 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-08 09:48 EST --- epoch is designed to be used sparingly. for instance if you need to revert to an older version. or upstream change there versioning in a way that means the new versioning will not update the old version. what you would be best using is the release. Statically linked binaries are frowned upon. not forbidden but it is recommended that you dynamically link. the dangling symlinks mean that the files they link to don't exist in the case of files needing different permissions then you need to list them more carefully in the %files section. making sure you own all directories and files you create. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187318] Review Request: mondo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mondo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187318 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-08 10:05 EST --- (In reply to comment #1) 1. Don't use all the macros at the top of your spec, it just makes it harder to do any qa on. Well, as I explained already in the mindi package, I have a build system to create .spec already in place. I'll see if I can do better, but for now these macros are useful for multirpm distro support (aka mandriva + suse + rhel + sles) 2. Drop the additional languages from the spec. Why that ? Is fedora becoming an english only distro ? there are billions of people not speaking english, and for them having the possibility to read something else that english is useful no ? To be honest those rpms exist nearly since the begining of the project, and nobody never complained on that before, so I'm really surprised. 3. Missing ChangeLog. My fault, will redeliver and add it. Corrected in SVN. 4. You using a non-standard Group. Corrected in SVN. 5. Duplicate BuildRequires: slang-devel (provided by newt-devel) I don't see the point here: # rpm -q slang-devel --provides slang-devel = 2.0.5-5.2.1 # rpm -q newt-devel --provides newt-devel = 0.52.2-5.2 What do you mean by duplicate ? Thanks for your answer, Bruno. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187318] Review Request: mondo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mondo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187318 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-08 10:10 EST --- by duplicate he means [EMAIL PROTECTED] SPECS]$ rpm -q --whatrequires slang-devel newt-devel-0.52.2-6 so by BuildRequire newt-devel you also get slang-devel -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 178901] Review Request: gtksourceview-sharp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gtksourceview-sharp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178901 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-08 10:10 EST --- Created an attachment (id=128745) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=128745action=view) Mock Build Failure Log gtksourceview-sharp currently fails in Mock. I've attached the build log, and if I've got some extra free time later today, I'll look to see what's causing the problem. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187430] Review Request: elektra
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: elektra https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187430 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-08 10:17 EST --- (In reply to comment #22) Nobody contributed a CSH script yet for profile.d and we don't know how to write one. Then I strongly suggest to learn about it: yum install tcsh Doesn't this documentation packaging proccess makes the build system too much dependent on RPM ? Not at all. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190991] Review Request: libpar2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: libpar2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190991
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-08 10:18 EST ---
Update:
Spec URL: http://www.di.ens.fr/~rineau/Fedora/libpar2.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.di.ens.fr/~rineau/Fedora/libpar2-0.2-2.src.rpm
Thank you for your comments, Ralf.
(In reply to comment #2)
1. Minor issues:
1.1
# rpmlint *RPMS/libpar*.rpm
E: libpar2-debuginfo script-without-shellbang
I fixed these one. I forgot to apply rpmlint to the debuginfo package.
E: libpar2-devel only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
I saw this one. I thought it is related to %{_libdir}/libpar2/include/config.h
See my answer to your point 3.
Most of these probably are caused by bogus permissions on source files.
1.2 Empty directory
/usr/lib/libpar2
Is this package supposed to take plugins, there?
It should includes a subdirectory include/, with config.h in it. See point 3.
2. Major:
This package's configuration (configure.ac/Makefile.am) is bugged:
- configure.ac uses PKG_CHECK_MODULES(..sigc++..) but doesn't propagate the
results to Makefile.am. Instead the Makefile explicitly links against
-lstdc++.
This violates g++'s working principles. Linking against -lstdc++ is a g++
internal detail.
This is an upstream bug. I am not an automake guru (not yet). I added a patch
in the package. It should correct this point. I'll try to make this patch
accepted by upstream, as soon as somebody confirms that this patch is correct.
3. Severe (Blocker):
The package installs an autoheader (config.h) to a public directory
(/usr/lib/libpar2/include/config.h). This file's contents will clash with
other
package's config headers and is a severe (must fix) design flaw of this
package.
A package must not install an autoheader.
I do not understand this point. This file config.h is in a directory owned by
the package: %{_libdir}/libpar2/include/
If a package cannot install an autoheader (such as config.h), how could
dependencies access to the compilation options used to build the package?
I have checked that several packages, some in FE, have config.h in
%{_libdir}/%{name}/include: at least sigc++-2.0, gtkmm-2.4, glib-2.0, and
gtk-2.0. I thought this was the usual way to process with config.h
Can you confirm that this point is a blocker for this request? As far as I
understand things, it does not seem too.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187318] Review Request: mondo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mondo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187318 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-08 10:26 EST --- (In reply to comment #4) by duplicate he means [EMAIL PROTECTED] SPECS]$ rpm -q --whatrequires slang-devel newt-devel-0.52.2-6 so by BuildRequire newt-devel you also get slang-devel Ok, understood. But what about th fact we need slang 1.4.1 ? This constraint is different from the previous one no ? Bruno. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190493] Review Request: python-yaml
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-yaml https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190493 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||DEFERRED Severity|normal |low Priority|normal |low -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187913] Review Request: mysql-query-browser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mysql-query-browser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187913 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-08 10:28 EST --- Created an attachment (id=128746) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=128746action=view) mysql-query-browser strace Hi I'm able to reproduce the segfault on x86_64. It only happens when I try to connect to remote mysql server. It seems that it fials to find libc.mo locale file on my system. Connecting to localhost works ok. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187318] Review Request: mondo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mondo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187318 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-08 10:38 EST --- 2. Drop the additional languages from the spec. Actually, it is recommanded to have the translations in the spec file. See the bottom of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines?highlight=translations (2nd SHOULD item) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191014] Review Request: ganymed
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ganymed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191014
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-08 10:39 EST ---
(In reply to comment #1)
* Why have all those macro definitions, conditional and otherwise, at the top
instead of just...
%define gcj_support 1
?
umm Ben Konrath added that part to my initial SPEC, I just thougth it was just
to make easy to package it for RHEL
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-java-list/2006-April/msg00048.html
* I've been using %{?dist} in Release tags, like
Release:1%{?dist}
* There's a preference to not use macros in Source0. It's something somebody
should be able to wget directly.
umm then i need to update my other packages already on extras,
* Missing '.' at the end of %description.
* Single line %post[un] bits should look like this...
%post -p %{_bindir}/rebuild-gcj-db
%postun -p %{_bindir}/rebuild-gcj-db
(rpmlint will complain about this)
Thanks!
The other ones are easy to do :-)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187318] Review Request: mondo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mondo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187318 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-08 10:43 EST --- disttag explenation http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DistTag it will have zero effect on other Distros \ we only provide one version of slang so if its not high enough build will fail. rpmbuild partial output. Requires: /bin/sh afio binutils bzip2 = 0.9 libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6 (GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit) libnewt.so.0.52()(64bit) libnewt.so.0.52 (NEWT_0.52)(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.2.5) (64bit) mindi = 1.0.7 mkisofs newt = 0.50 slang = 1.4.1 syslinux = 1.52 so you link to libnewt's shared objects rpm knows that and has a requires on it. you dont link toslang though so it is a superfluous Requires as it is brought in via newt. i am assuming that you are using bzip2 binutils mkisofs syslinux via scripts? as you havent linked to them. you also have alot of duplicate files listed did you read the packaging guidelines? they answer most of these issues -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188542] Review Request: hylafax
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hylafax https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188542 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-08 10:49 EST --- (In reply to comment #13) What is the best way to attract the attention of a sponsor? Basically, you need to convince one of the sponsors that: - you have a genuine interest in FE - you have a good grasp of FE packaging policies - you are responsive To try to demonstrate these facts, you can: - offer more packages to review - look through other people's packages and offer useful advice on their packaging. You cannot formally approve a package yet, but you can help bringing other packages in good shape for a formal approval. Is waiting all that I can do? Idly waiting is not a good way to find a sponsor. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191036] Review Request: libmp4v2 a library for handling the mp4 container format
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libmp4v2 a library for handling the mp4 container format https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191036 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||182235 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-08 10:49 EST --- I'm afraid this is something that will need an ack from someone (legal?) who can tell if it's acceptable in FE. FWIW, to me it looks like a no. For example, from http://mpeg4ip.sourceforge.net/faq/index.php Q: What are the licensing terms associated with this project? A: Like most modern codecs, MPEG-4 Video and Audio codecs are almost certainly subject to patent royalities. This project does not remove any responsiblity or liability from developers or users of this kit. [...] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188369] Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188369 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-08 10:54 EST --- It really got installed as /libcyberjack_ifd.so on my system because I didn't have pcsc-lite-devel. rpmbuild should have detected this but your spec file misses a: BuildRequires: pcsc-lite-devel Add that to your MUST Fix list. I'll see what I can do about your account. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188542] Review Request: hylafax
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hylafax https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188542 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163776 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-08 10:59 EST --- (In reply to comment #13) Can you please post the Core 5 build errors? Still the same as in comment #9. What is the best way to attract the attention of a sponsor? Is waiting all that I can do? I'm afraid yes. You could add comments to other reviews to proof your knowledge and understanding of the guidelines, to show you are worth being sponsored. But IMO no one has a doubt about that. I suggest you wait a bit. If nothing happens, feel free to ask on fedora-extras-list. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190991] Review Request: libpar2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: libpar2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190991
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-08 11:12 EST ---
(In reply to comment #3)
3. Severe (Blocker):
The package installs an autoheader (config.h) to a public directory
(/usr/lib/libpar2/include/config.h). This file's contents will clash with
other
package's config headers and is a severe (must fix) design flaw of this
package.
A package must not install an autoheader.
I do not understand this point. This file config.h is in a directory owned by
the package: %{_libdir}/libpar2/include/
If a package cannot install an autoheader (such as config.h), how could
dependencies access to the compilation options used to build the package?
There is no general answer to this question, but somehow - This is the basic
question package configuration tools want to solve.
The fundamental design flaws with exporting config header are:
* autoheaders generated config.h's contain a snapshot of the build system's
state having been taken at the time the configure script had been run.
This state is by no means connected to a system's state, the package had been
installed on.
* autoheaders contain defines that are reserved to autoconf and will clash with
those autoconf internal defines being used by configure scripts wanting to use
this library. (E.g. /usr/lib/libpar2/include/config.h's PACKAGE_NAME will do
so)
* autoheaders reflect a package's internal demands/requirements. These are not
connected to a package using a package's demands.
AFAIS, libpar2 expects packages using it to provide a set of autoconf defines.
This doesn't work.
I have checked that several packages, some in FE, have config.h in
%{_libdir}/%{name}/include: at least sigc++-2.0, gtkmm-2.4, glib-2.0, and
gtk-2.0. I thought this was the usual way to process with config.h
If the files you are referring to are autoheaders, these packages are also
bugged.
libtiff is a well known case having suffered (still suffering?) from this issue.
Can you confirm that this point is a blocker for this request?
Yes, it is.
The sources are suffering from a design flaw which disqualify this
package from FE.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190937] Review Request: perl-Module-Install
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Module-Install https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190937 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-08 11:17 EST --- (In reply to comment #1) The source URL seems to be wrong; is upstream really on your site? CPAN says http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/authors/id/A/AD/ADAMK/Module-Install-0.62.tar.gz, which I'll take as upstream for the purposes fo this review. Oops, apparently I forgot to unset CPAN before running cpanspec. Sorry. One of the tests spits out some warnings because various utilities are missing; is it worth adding additional BR:s to get more coverage? Definitely. Did you happen to save a build log? (It would save me another mock build.) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191005] Review Request: glob2 - Realtime Strategy game
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: glob2 - Realtime Strategy game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191005 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-08 11:46 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) (In reply to comment #1) 2. The desktop file is not handled correctly. The desktop file is supplyed by the application, and the documentation only explains how to add a custom made one. By the documentation, specifically the line Many applications will come with their own .desktop file, but if not, just make your own, and include it, the handling seems correct. As is, this does not meet that FE standards. Please look at the wiki some more, and if that is not enough, also look at packages in CVS to help you find the solution to this. http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/?root=extras -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188369] Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188369 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-08 11:54 EST --- It turns out I've managed to renable you account and sponosr you with any help so you should have CVS access now. But do _not_ import this package yet it first needs to be approved, please post a version with all the Must Fix items fixed and I'll see if that one (finally) is it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188369] Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188369 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-08 12:06 EST --- yes of course but I must wait until my system I ready to start the next try -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 180571] Review Request: puppet
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: puppet https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=180571 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-08 12:17 EST --- Did you rebuild facter after the problems you had on bug 182064 ? Can you paste the output of 'rpm -ql facter' in this ticket ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190949] Review Request: gaim-gaym
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gaim-gaym https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190949 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-08 12:25 EST --- Apologies -- had pushed rel 0 rather than rel 1 of the srpm :\ Spec tweaked, explicit requires: gtk2 dropped. Spec URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/gaim-gaym.spec SRPM URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/gaim-gaym-0.96-2.fc5.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191005] Review Request: glob2 - Realtime Strategy game
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: glob2 - Realtime Strategy game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191005 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-08 12:35 EST --- I based myself on the yumex spec file to try a fix the desktop file problem. Spec: http://www.sendspace.com/file/d6snuu I'm having problems to upload the SRPM, I will post it here later if the spec file is ok. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 186811] Review Request: libnfnetlink - Netfilter netlink userspace library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libnfnetlink - Netfilter netlink userspace library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=186811 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-08 12:42 EST --- (In reply to comment #11) So to my understanding there is nothing really preventing a release in extras, since the gpl-text can be added to the package without it being upstream as well for now. Or is there something I could do to actually move this topic (release in extras) forward? Jochen is asking you to include http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt as an additional source file, to include this file as %doc in your spec, and also to try to get upstream to include a copy of the license text distributed with their source. Whilst there is no requirement in the package review guidelines for the license text to be packaged if upstream do not provide it, and poking upstream is only a *should* rather than a *must* in the guidelines, if you want to get this package approved sooner rather than later, I'd do as Jochen asks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188369] Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188369 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-08 13:04 EST --- So now I have modify %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig but this give now antoher error of rpmlind. The new one is here: http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/qsmartcard/ctapi-cyberjack-2.0.8-10FC5.src.rpm?download -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190705] Review Request: perl-Test-Base
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Test-Base https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190705 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-08 14:01 EST --- Steven, The Algorithm::Diff requirement and build requirement can be dropped as Text::Diff requires it. The Test::Base::Filter may use the LWP::Simple module to download files. Being this a test module I think it should be nice to require it (not BR). jpo -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189824] Review Request: lasi - C++ library for creating Postscript documents
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: lasi - C++ library for creating Postscript documents https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189824 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-08 14:05 EST --- APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187430] Review Request: elektra
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: elektra https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187430 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-08 14:11 EST --- The new version is temporarily here: http://avi.alkalay.net/software/elektra/elektra-0.6.1-30.src.rpm All warnings were cleaned. /bin/kdb and /lib/libelektra* were not moved to /usr because the nature of this software is to be usable also by early boot stage programs. All %doc-related suggestions were implemented. Many other cleanups and suggestions were implemented. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190845] Review Request: sblim
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sblim https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190845 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-08 14:13 EST --- OK, so this feature request is because of a RHEL 4 feature request that involves adding software a) to enable third-party monitoring software b) on a platform we don't even ship in Fedora Core (zSeries.) I don't see how this is relevant for Core at all. This should be an extras review, if new code is being added there. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190705] Review Request: perl-Test-Base
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Test-Base https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190705 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-08 14:14 EST --- (In reply to comment #7) The Algorithm::Diff requirement and build requirement can be dropped as Text::Diff requires it. The Test::Base::Filter may use the LWP::Simple module to download files. Being this a test module I think it should be nice to require it (not BR). Done and done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190937] Review Request: perl-Module-Install
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Module-Install https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190937 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-08 14:15 EST --- I believed the warnings are harmless and are being emitted by the CPAN module that this module loads. It must be complaining about the missing configuration. The gpg, ftp, ncftp*, wget are CPAN configuration variables. See the output of $ perl -MCPAN -e shell cpan o conf or the contents of a CPAN configuration file eg: /usr/lib/perl5/5.8.8/CPAN/Config.pm jpo -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189824] Review Request: lasi - C++ library for creating Postscript documents
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: lasi - C++ library for creating Postscript documents https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189824 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-08 14:21 EST --- Checked in. Added to owners.list Built on devel. FC-4 and FC-5 to come shortly. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190705] Review Request: perl-Test-Base
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Test-Base https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190705 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-08 14:25 EST --- Thanks Steven. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187913] Review Request: mysql-query-browser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mysql-query-browser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187913 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-08 14:28 EST --- I've played a bit with the query browser and first I made the following symlink: ln -s /usr/share/locale/en_GB/LC_MESSAGES/libc.mo /usr/share/locale/en/LC_MESSAGES/libc.mo just to make sure that it can find the libc.mo file, but it didn't solve the problem (still segfault at line 20). I removed the database name in Default Schema field and I was able to connect sucessfully. However when I click on the database name in the Schemata panel the segfault occurs. The mysql server version is 4.0.23 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190066] Review Request: php-pear-Mail
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-Mail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190066 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-08 14:38 EST --- I've change to PHP License which is listed in the DEFAULT_VALID_LICENSES (/usr/share/rpmlint/TagsCheck.py), but rpmlint still complain This file is overriden by /usr/share/rpmlint/config which lacks the PHP License. I've opened a bug to add it, see bug 191078. This is not a blocker of course. I'm waiting for the php package update to be published to test and approve this package, since it is dependant on it. Afterwards, I'll sponsor you. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188482] Review Request: scipy-0.4.8
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: scipy-0.4.8 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188482 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-08 14:43 EST --- I believe I have done all that was requested. Updated srpm is here http://nbecker.dyndns.org:8080/scipy-0.4.8-3.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191005] Review Request: glob2 - Realtime Strategy game
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: glob2 - Realtime Strategy game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191005
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-08 14:57 EST ---
Couple of items:
1. Package fails to build in Mock. Your missing a BuildRequirement. For
information on Mock refer to: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/MockTricks
2. Not a blocker, but in the files section, use %{_datadir}/%{name}/, instead of
individually listing the children directories.
3. The docs can be listed on one line with a space between each document. If
this doesn't make sense, look at this for an example of what I'm talking about:
http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/gnomebaker/gnomebaker.spec?root=extrasview=markup
4. Instead of one long line in your desktop-file-install call how about some
line breaks to make it easier to read. Refer to the above spec, if you've got
questions.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191088] Review Request: mlsutils
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mlsutils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191088 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: main |Review Request: mlsutils |package name here | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 186887] Review Request: libnetfilter_conntrack - Netfilter conntrack userspace library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libnetfilter_conntrack - Netfilter conntrack userspace library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=186887 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-08 16:26 EST --- http://stingr.net/l/fe/libnetfilter_conntrack.spec http://stingr.net/l/fe/libnetfilter_conntrack-0.0.30-2.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 186892] Review Request: conntrack - Tool to manipulate netfilter connection tracking table
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: conntrack - Tool to manipulate netfilter connection tracking table https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=186892 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added QAContact|fedora-extras- |fedora-package- |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-08 16:26 EST --- http://stingr.net/l/fe/conntrack.spec http://stingr.net/l/fe/conntrack-0.99.1-2.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190582] Review Request: perl-Module-ScanDeps - Recursively scan Perl code for dependencies
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Module-ScanDeps - Recursively scan Perl code for dependencies https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190582 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-08 17:04 EST --- Thanks for the review. Imported and built for FC-4, FC-5, and devel. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191005] Review Request: glob2 - Realtime Strategy game
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: glob2 - Realtime Strategy game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191005 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-08 17:24 EST --- I can't test the package in Mock (prep stage takes more time than I have available today), but I believe I have fixed the depedency problem, or at least most of it. Spec: http://www.sendspace.com/file/f5w635 SRPM: http://www.sendspace.com/file/8eyxmn -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189151] Review Request: xsp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: xsp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189151
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-08 17:35 EST ---
MD5Sums:
58facfdb9d13d48f9e8ad5069500081d xsp-1.1.13.tar.gz
Good:
* Source URL is canonical
* Upstream source tarball verified
* Package name conforms to the Fedora Naming Guidelines
* Buildroot has all required elements
* All paths begin with macros
* All necessary BuildRequires listed
* Builds fine in Mock.
Bad:
* The Group tag should probably reflect the same group as Apache (System
Environment/Daemons), since it is a web server.
* You have ownership problems with some of your directories that must be fixed.
* The %clean section is missing.
* Produces the following rpmlint errors:
W: xsp incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.1.13-1 1.1.13-2
E: xsp no-binary
E: xsp only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
E: xsp script-without-shellbang /usr/lib/xsp/2.0/asp-state2.exe.config
W: xsp devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/pkgconfig/xsp-2.pc
E: xsp standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/share/man/man1
E: xsp script-without-shellbang /usr/lib/xsp/2.0/dbsessmgr2.exe.config
E: xsp script-without-shellbang /usr/lib/xsp/1.0/asp-state.exe.config
W: xsp devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/pkgconfig/xsp.pc
E: xsp script-without-shellbang /usr/lib/xsp/1.0/dbsessmgr.exe.config
W: xsp one-line-command-in-%post /sbin/ldconfig
W: xsp one-line-command-in-%postun /sbin/ldconfig
In particular, the 'standard-dir-owned-by-package' must be fixed. Also, the
ChangeLog error must be corrected. The scriptlets for the shared libraries are
unnecessary, since as far as I can tell this package doesn't contain any. Most
of the others can be ignored, since it is a mono package.
Minor:
* The 'rm -rf ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}' in the %prep section is unnecessary.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191005] Review Request: glob2 - Realtime Strategy game
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: glob2 - Realtime Strategy game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191005 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-08 17:47 EST --- Your still missing a BuildRequirement. Also, when you change the spec file, please update the Release number, and add a ChangeLog w/ the changes made. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190175] Review Request: p0rn-comfort - Support programs for browsing image-gallery sites
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: p0rn-comfort - Support programs for browsing image-gallery sites https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190175 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191110] New: Review Request: perl-Devel-Cover - Code coverage metrics for Perl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191110 Summary: Review Request: perl-Devel-Cover - Code coverage metrics for Perl Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://gsd.di.uminho.pt/jpo/software/fedora/perl-Devel-Cover.spec SRPM URL: http://gsd.di.uminho.pt/jpo/software/fedora/perl-Devel-Cover-0.55-1.src.rpm Description: This module provides code coverage metrics for Perl. Targets: distros = FC-5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191111] New: Review Request: perl-Test-Cmd - Perl module for portable testing of commands and scripts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19 Summary: Review Request: perl-Test-Cmd - Perl module for portable testing of commands and scripts Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://gsd.di.uminho.pt/jpo/software/fedora/perl-Test-Cmd.spec SRPM URL: http://gsd.di.uminho.pt/jpo/software/fedora/perl-Test-Cmd-1.05-1.src.rpm Description: The Test::Cmd module provides a framework for portable automated testing of executable commands and scripts (in any language, not just Perl), especially commands and scripts that interace with the file system. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189727] Review Request: Scribes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Scribes https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189727 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163779 | nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191130] New: Review Request: kmobiletools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191130 Summary: Review Request: kmobiletools Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://ausil.us/packages/kmobiletools.spec SRPM URL: http://ausil.us/packages/kmobiletools-0.4.3.3-1.fc5.src.rpm Description: KMobileTools is a KDE application that allows you to control your mobile phone from your GNU/Linux workstation To use KMobileTools you need a mobile phone, that can be attached to your PC using any type of connection (serial, USB, bluetooth and irda were tested successfully), and using an AT interface (modem-like) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190991] Review Request: libpar2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libpar2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190991 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-08 23:01 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) Ralf, could you either indicate where in the guidelines this type of thing is forbidden or at least point to some discussion on the matter? Your final statement about the package being disqualified from Extras seems awfully arbitrary without it. This is not a matter of taste nor of personal preference. It's a mere technical requirement implied by autoconf's and a compiler's working principles (cf. info autoconf, search the autoconf mailing lists archive). Or to put it in short: This package is unusable. I have no opinion one way or the other on this issue because I am not familiar with it, but if you're just making up policy then I don't think it's fair to the package submitter. Sorry, but I am not making up packaging policies here nor am I accusing the packager. It's simply a case of this package's sources are broken and need to be reworked to be functional. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190939] Review Request: daap-sharp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: daap-sharp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190939 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189375] Re-Review Request: Maelstrom: space combat game
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Re-Review Request: Maelstrom: space combat game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189375 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-09 01:31 EST --- Changes in CVS, including changing the setuid handling. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
