[Bug 193884] Review Request: tolua++ - A tool to integrate C/C++ code with Lua
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: tolua++ - A tool to integrate C/C++ code with Lua https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193884 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-03 02:54 EST --- Looks good, approved! One remark though, my soname fix also adds an ELF SONAME tag to the tolua++ executable. I don't think this can do harm and I don't know enough scons to fix it, so lets leave it this way for now. But this is not how things should be. -- 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 189713] Review Request: gnubg
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: gnubg
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189713
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-03 03:46 EST ---
MUST:
=
* rpmlint output is:
W: gnubg file-not-utf8 /usr/share/man/man6/gnubg.6.gz
W: gnubg-databases no-documentation
W: gnubg-sounds no-documentation
You must fix the not utf8 error, you can do so by running iconv
on the uncompressed manpage, see gcompris for an example. Notice that the
original encoding may be different then in gcompris though (probably not).
* Package and spec file named appropriately
* Packaged according to packaging guidelines
* License (GPL) ok, license file included
* spec file is legible and in Am. English.
* Source matches upstream
* Compiles and builds on devel-x86_64
* BR: see below
* No locales
* no shared libs
* Not relocatable
* Package owns / or requires all dirs
* No duplicate files Permissions ok
* %clean macro usage OK
* Contains code only
* %doc does not affect runtime, and isn't large enough to warrent a sub package
* no -devel needed
* gui .desktop required but none included! must fix!
MUST fix:
=
* building on devel gives:
error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
/usr/share/info/dir
This file should be removed at the end of %install
Be sure to use rm -f for the removal since in my experience this file
doesn't get created on all Fedora versions.
* Remove bogus BuildRequires: gtk+-devel this is a gtk2 app, gtk+-devel
is for gtk1 apps.
* gtk2-devel implies freetype-devel, remove Extranous freetype-devel BR.
* esound-devel implies audiofile-devel, remove Extranous audiofile-devel BR.
* Add a desktop file and icon, see njam(.spec) for an example on howto
properly install the .desktop file and the icon and howto properly update the
icon cache on install / remove.
Should fix:
===
* I get this during the build:
/bin/sh: gnubg.weights: No such file or directory
make[2]: [gnubg.wd] Error 1 (ignored)
Yet you've included a a gnubg.weights as Source1, appearantly its not put
in the right place.
* And this:
cp: cannot stat /usr/share/texinfo/texinfo.dtd': No such file or directory
But this one can brobably be ignored I can't find texinfo.dtd anywhere on
my fairly complete install. Notice that gnubg itself does contain and
installs a texinfo.dtd
* You can write things like:
%dir %{_datadir}/gnubg/met
%{_datadir}/gnubg/met/*
As just:
%{_datadir}/gnubg/met
And the same for:
%dir %{_datadir}/gnubg/scripts
%{_datadir}/gnubg/scripts/*
Which can be just:
%{_datadir}/gnubg/scripts
Etc.
And probably the same for:
%dir %{_datadir}/gnubg/doc
%{_datadir}/gnubg/doc/*.png
%{_datadir}/gnubg/doc/texinfo.dtd
%{_datadir}/gnubg/doc/gnubg.xml
Which can probably be written as just:
%{_datadir}/gnubg/doc
Explain:
* Why add --without-board3d, gtkglext(-devel) is available in FE.
* Why the seperate database and soundpackages, does the main package
function without these?
--
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 189713] Review Request: gnubg
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: gnubg
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189713
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-03 03:52 EST ---
And a MUST fix I missed initially:
* You must %ghost the .pyo files in
/usr/share/gnubg/scripts/
You can do this by adding this line to %files:
%ghost %{_datadir}/gnubg/scripts/*.pyo
--
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 191606] Review Request: lineak_kdeplugins - KDE-based actions for lineakd
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: lineak_kdeplugins - KDE-based actions for lineakd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191606 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- 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 192043] Review Request: ucblogo - An interpreter for the Logo programming language
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: ucblogo - An interpreter for the Logo programming language https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192043 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-03 06:08 EST --- (In reply to comment #3) (In reply to comment #2) Would it be ok to BR: /usr/bin/tex? Then this doesn't have to change in the spec-file between FC5 and FC6. The current texinfo package in FC4 and FC5 provides texinfo-tex, so there should be no need for a separate spec for those releases. Ok. I can move them to site-lisp if you want. I don't think it makes much difference either way, but if it's easy then it would be more consistent to do it that way. I leave it as it is. http://math.ifi.unizh.ch/fedora/5/i386/SRPMS.gemi/ucblogo-5.5-3.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 193470] Review Request: renrot - A program to rename and rotate files according to EXIF tags
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: renrot - A program to rename and rotate files according to EXIF tags https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193470 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-03 06:40 EST --- Updated version here: SRPM URL: ftp://andriy.asplinux.com.ua/pub/people/andy/extras/renrot-0.20-2.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 193784] Review Request: linuxdcpp - A port of DC++ to Linux
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: linuxdcpp - A port of DC++ to Linux https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193784 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-03 07:03 EST --- Updated version here: SRPM URL: ftp://andriy.asplinux.com.ua/pub/people/andy/extras/linuxdcpp-0.0-0.3. 20060603cvs.src.rpm * Sat Jun 03 2006 Andy Shevchenko [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.0-0.3.20060603cvs - update to 20060603 (memory leaks was fixed) - add a -p flag to the line that copies README.lang.ru -- 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] 2006-06-03 07:15 EST --- (In reply to comment #33) There is still an issue, with kdb dlopening libelektratools. Indeed, libelektratools.so is in elektra-devel, so kdb cannot dlopen libelektratool. For example at install time [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# rpm -Uvh /home/dumas/RPM-fc/RPMS/i386/elektra-0.6.2-1.i386.rpm Préparation... ### [100%] 1:elektra### [100%] kdbLibLoad : libelektratools.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directorykdb: XML importing and editing disabled kdbLibLoad : libelektratools.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directorykdb: XML importing and editing disabled How and where to ask for a sponsor ? First of all make that bug block FE-NEEDSPONSOR Ask on the fedora-extras-list for a sponsor pointing out your comments on other people package reviews, participate in the discussions on the fedora extras mailing lists, subscribe to the cvs commit extras mailing list, watch the changes for the packages you are interested in and comment on them when you have something to say, submit bug reports when you have found limitations in other people packages. -- 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 178904] Review Request: Monodevelop
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: Monodevelop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178904 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-03 07:58 EST --- It seems this package owns some directories already owned by shared-mime-info, as well as some other directories onto /usr/share/mime. [EMAIL PROTECTED] share]$ rpm -qf /usr/share/mime shared-mime-info-0.17-1.fc5.1 monodevelop-0.11-2 [EMAIL PROTECTED] share]$ rpm -qf /usr/share/mime/packages shared-mime-info-0.17-1.fc5.1 monodevelop-0.11-2 [EMAIL PROTECTED] share]$ rpm -ql monodevelop | grep mime | grep -v .xml$ /usr/share/mime /usr/share/mime/XMLnamespaces /usr/share/mime/aliases /usr/share/mime/application /usr/share/mime/globs /usr/share/mime/magic /usr/share/mime/mime.cache /usr/share/mime/packages /usr/share/mime/subclasses /usr/share/mime/ May be it's worth to fix it now to avoid the case of /usr/share/applications. [EMAIL PROTECTED] share]$ rpm -q --whatprovides /usr/share/applications gnome-media-2.14.0-2 bug-buddy-2.14.0-1 glade2-2.12.1-2 gnome-utils-2.14.0-4.fc5.1 nautilus-2.14.1-1.fc5.1 openoffice.org-calc-2.0.2-5.12.2 gthumb-2.7.5.1-1.fc5.1 openoffice.org-impress-2.0.2-5.12.2 eog-2.14.1-1.fc5.1 file-roller-2.14.2-1.fc5.1 gnome-system-monitor-2.14.1-1.fc5.1 gedit-2.14.2-1.fc5.1 openoffice.org-draw-2.0.2-5.12.2 openoffice.org-writer-2.0.2-5.12.2 gnome-session-2.14.1-1.fc5.1 openoffice.org-math-2.0.2-5.12.2 gdm-2.14.4-1.fc5.1 gnome-terminal-2.14.1-1.fc5.1 gnome-games-2.14.1-1.fc5.3 gftp-2.0.18-3.2.1 filesystem-2.3.7-1.2.1 monodevelop-0.11-2 I think all those packages should require filesystem to avoid this mess up - or require nothing explicitly, assuming filesystem is already installed. Otherwise the monodevelop package looks and works fine 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 192583] Review Request: php-pear-XML-Parser - XML parsing class based on PHP's bundled expat
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-XML-Parser - XML parsing class based on PHP's bundled expat https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192583 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-03 08:08 EST --- 1/ Provides follow php guidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/PHP 2/ it's a rpmlint bug, see Bug #191078 3/ none provided upstream (only examples), i've also add the Licence. 4/ this warning is normal. Useful to check the Requires in spec file. -- 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 178904] Review Request: Monodevelop
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: Monodevelop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178904
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-03 08:08 EST ---
(In reply to comment #33)
It seems this package owns some directories already owned by shared-mime-info,
as well as some other directories onto /usr/share/mime.
This is due to problems in the %files section of the spec file (in particular
the '%{_datadir}/*'). This seems to be a constant problem, which I've noticed
with other packages I've reviewed for Paul.
--
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 182415] Review Request: man-pages-uk - Ukrainian man pages from Linux Documentation Project
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: man-pages-uk - Ukrainian man pages from Linux Documentation Project https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=182415 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-03 08:35 EST --- What the manuals are non-utf8 exactly? I review all manuals in tarball and find nothing non-utf mans. I've catched the package version from a VERSION Makefile's variable. Is it not correct? -- 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 193960] New: Review Request: perl-Net-LibIDN
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=193960 Summary: Review Request: perl-Net-LibIDN 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://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/perl-Net-LibIDN.spec SRPM URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/perl-Net-LibIDN-0.08-5.src.rpm Description: Provides perl bindings for GNU Libidn, a C library for handling Internationalized Domain Names according to IDNA (RFC 3490), in a way very much inspired by Turbo Fredriksson's PHP-IDN. -- 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] 2006-06-03 09:37 EST --- Spec Name or Url: http://www.smmp.salford.ac.uk/packages/gtksourceview-sharp.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://www.smmp.salford.ac.uk/packages/gtksourceview-sharp-2.0-9.src.rpm Changed do the libdir bits are explicit rather than just make everything mine Now please, someone, review it and let's get going on 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 189092] Review Request: boo
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: boo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189092 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-03 09:41 EST --- I've started looking at getting 0.7.6.2237 in instead of 2013. The problem is that nant (which is now waiting to be included in extras) doesn't seem to have the equivalent of make install, so I'll have to hack around and basically copy things manually :-( -- 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 193884] Review Request: tolua++ - A tool to integrate C/C++ code with Lua
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: tolua++ - A tool to integrate C/C++ code with Lua https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193884 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-03 09:51 EST --- In a future release it might be possible to patch the build process so scons doesn't actually link the executable but is handled outside of scons, although this sort of thing can get quite messy. -- 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 178904] Review Request: Monodevelop
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: Monodevelop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178904
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-03 10:19 EST ---
Couple of quick items:
1. Dekstop file is not handled correctly.
2. Locals are no handled correctly.
3. In the files section to simplify it, why don't you use
'%{_datadir}/mime/application/*.xml'? This would be much easier than listing
each file.
4. Don't package the generic INSTALL file.
--
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 178904] Review Request: Monodevelop
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: Monodevelop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178904 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-03 10:25 EST --- Also, don't add filesystem as a Requirement. Comment #33 was incorrect in suggesting this, since the error was due to your handling of directories in the %file section -- 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 178904] Review Request: Monodevelop
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: Monodevelop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178904
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-03 10:45 EST ---
Okay, I've sorted #36 and #37 for the most part, except I'm not sure how to
handle the desktop file and for the LOCALES, am I okay to just have
%{_datadir}/locale/*
or would that cause problems?
--
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 191389] Review Request: oooqs2
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: oooqs2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191389 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-03 10:45 EST --- The reason i require all the components of openoffice.org was because the applet provides shortcuts for each of the different components and if someone wanted to start oowriter from the applet and it did not work they would be surprised -- 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 193470] Review Request: renrot - A program to rename and rotate files according to EXIF tags
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: renrot - A program to rename and rotate files according to EXIF tags https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193470 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-03 11:07 EST --- Everything looks good; check in whenever you 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 178904] Review Request: Monodevelop
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: Monodevelop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178904
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-03 11:10 EST ---
(In reply to comment #38)
Okay, I've sorted #36 and #37 for the most part, except I'm not sure how to
handle the desktop file and for the LOCALES, am I okay to just have
%{_datadir}/locale/*
or would that cause problems?
That is a blocker. Packages MUST handle locales correctly, which is done by
using the %find_lang macro. Refer to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-8c605ebf8330f6d505f384e671986fa99a8f72ee
Information on how to handle desktop files can be found
here:http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-254ddf07aae20a23ced8cecc219d8f73926e9755
Also, you missing the scriptlets needed to for mimeinfo.
Most of the issues can be solved by reading the Packaging Guideline fully.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines
--
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 193480] Review Request: sunifdef
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: sunifdef https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193480 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-03 11:12 EST --- Done. I had missed the point about %check before, sorry. I didn't actually know %check existed. Live and learn. Spec URL: http://physics.open.ac.uk/~ju83/sunifdef.spec SRPM URL: http://physics.open.ac.uk/~ju83/sunifdef-1.0-3.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 171915] Review Request: texmaker - LaTeX editor
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: texmaker - LaTeX editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=171915 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC|fedora-extras- |fedora-package- |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- 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 193470] Review Request: renrot - A program to rename and rotate files according to EXIF tags
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: renrot - A program to rename and rotate files according to EXIF tags https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193470 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-03 11:46 EST --- Thank you for review. -- 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 193960] Review Request: perl-Net-LibIDN
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-Net-LibIDN https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193960 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||177841 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-03 12:01 EST --- Packager needs 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 178904] Review Request: Monodevelop
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: Monodevelop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178904 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-03 12:01 EST --- Spec Name or Url: http://www.smmp.salford.ac.uk/packages/monodevelop.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://www.smmp.salford.ac.uk/packages/monodevelop-0.11-4.src.rpm All of points #36 and #37 are addressed in this 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 190664] Review Request: keyutils - Kernel key management userspace utilities
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: keyutils - Kernel key management userspace utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190664 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-03 12:12 EST --- The Source0 URL doesn't exist. You're the upstream so it doesn't seem to matter much for the purposes of the review, but it would be good to make sure that the source is always where the srpm says it is. You install a shared libary into a system location but you don't call ldconfig. I believe this is a blocker. Review: * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. ? source files match upstream (can't check) ? latest version is being packaged (I assume so since you're the upstream) * BuildRequires are proper. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: keyutils-1.1-3.fc6.x86_64.rpm config(keyutils) = 1.1-3.fc6 keyutils = 1.1-3.fc6 = /bin/sh config(keyutils) = 1.1-3.fc6 libkeyutils.so.1()(64bit) libkeyutils.so.1(KEYUTILS_0.3)(64bit) libkeyutils.so.1(KEYUTILS_1.0)(64bit) keyutils-libs-1.1-3.fc6.x86_64.rpm libkeyutils.so.1()(64bit) libkeyutils.so.1(KEYUTILS_0.3)(64bit) libkeyutils.so.1(KEYUTILS_1.0)(64bit) keyutils-libs = 1.1-3.fc6 = libkeyutils.so.1()(64bit) keyutils-libs-devel-1.1-3.fc6.x86_64.rpm keyutils-libs-devel = 1.1-3.fc6 = keyutils-libs = 1.1-3.fc6 X shared libraries are present (in -libs subpackage) but ldconfig is not called. * package is not relocatable. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * %clean is present. * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. ? no scriptlets present (but there should be) * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. (Most of the documentation is in the -devel subpackage). * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * headers are in -devel subpackage. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. * not a GUI app. -- 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 178904] Review Request: Monodevelop
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: Monodevelop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178904
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-03 12:38 EST ---
You need to remove the duplicate desktop file. Add the '--delete-original' to
your desktop-file-install line, and remove the
'%{_datadir}/applications/monodevelop.desktop' from the file section.
--
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 192958] Review Request: ejabberd - A distributed, fault-tolerant Jabber/XMPP server
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: ejabberd - A distributed, fault-tolerant Jabber/XMPP server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192958 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-03 14:01 EST --- I'm sure the program works; the question is whether the package meets the Extras guidelines and one of those is that rpmlint must have no valid complaints. Unfortunately I'm not familiar with this particular complaint since I've not seen it before. I understand that these are modules pilled in by Erlang, but neither Perl nor Python will generate libraries without SONAME as far as I know. I've reviewed other Erlang packages (c.f. wings) which did not have this problem. I received little guidance on IRC; just a comment that this looks like an upstream bug. I'll try on 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 192043] Review Request: ucblogo - An interpreter for the Logo programming language
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: ucblogo - An interpreter for the Logo programming language https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192043 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-03 14:38 EST --- Builds fine and looks good. 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 166919] Review Request: findlib
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: findlib https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=166919 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-03 15:20 EST --- I completely forgot about this, sorry! The URLs are broken, can you provide new ones. -- 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 181599] Review Request: gallery2: web based photo album software
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: gallery2: web based photo album software https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181599 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-03 16:21 EST --- Re comment #61: Yeah, that was the problem. It was defaulting to /srv/gallery2 instead of the data dir that I gave it. This must be a bug in the installer... ;( Multi-site is working here if I go to that step and manually edit the config.php to put in the right path. So, outstanding issues I see: - Making a README.fedora would be nice (but not required). - There was some talk at a recent FESCo meeting about requiring web apps to install in /usr/share/$name instead of /var/www/$name, but I don't see any hard requirement on it currently, and I don't think the selinux stuff is in place for that currently either. I want to do a final rebuild/rpmlint/sanity check here before approval. If anyone else sees any blockers, speak up now... -- 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 192119] Review Request: tuxkart - Kids 3D go-kart racing game featuring Tux
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: tuxkart - Kids 3D go-kart racing game featuring Tux https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192119 Bug 192119 depends on bug 192086, which changed state. Bug 192086 Summary: PATCH: (proper) fullscreen support https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192086 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- 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 193982] Review Request: osgal - Adapts OpenSceneGraph to use OpenAL++
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: osgal - Adapts OpenSceneGraph to use OpenAL++ https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193982 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||193934 -- 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 193884] Review Request: tolua++ - A tool to integrate C/C++ code with Lua
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: tolua++ - A tool to integrate C/C++ code with Lua https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193884 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-03 17:37 EST --- Just noticed Hans, those link flags DO break tolua++. I'm currently investigating a fix, but it appears to be because the exe has the same 'soname' as the library. With those link flags, do an ldd on the tolua++ binary, you get: linux-gate.so.1 = (0x004df000) liblua-5.1.so = /usr/lib/liblua-5.1.so (0x0063c000) libdl.so.2 = /lib/libdl.so.2 (0x00111000) libm.so.6 = /lib/libm.so.6 (0x00115000) libc.so.6 = /lib/libc.so.6 (0x004fe000) /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x004e) Strange I thought, it isn't dynamically linked to libtolua++-5.1.so. Checking the build, it certainly does link it to this library so why isn't it showing. I checked the exe and if you try and do anything useful with it you get: tolua++: symbol lookup error: tolua++: undefined symbol: tolua_open which sort of confirms that ld isn't dynamically linking it. Now if you remove those LINK flags rebuild and do an ldd, you get: linux-gate.so.1 = (0x004df000) libtolua++-5.1.so = /usr/lib/libtolua++-5.1.so (0x0020) liblua-5.1.so = /usr/lib/liblua-5.1.so (0x0067a000) libdl.so.2 = /lib/libdl.so.2 (0x0065) libm.so.6 = /lib/libm.so.6 (0x00629000) libc.so.6 = /lib/libc.so.6 (0x004fe000) /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x004e) Notice, libtolua++-5.1.so shows this time? I think because ld is using the 'soname', it already discovers this 'soname' in the exe itself, so it assumes the appropriate library has been found and doesn't look any further. Without the LINK flags, neither the exe nor the library has an 'soname' so ld falls back to the library name, ie libtolua++-5.1.so and finds it. Somehow I need to get scons to use the soname for the library only. What do you think? -- 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 176374] Review Request: nagios-plugins
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: nagios-plugins https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176374 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-03 18:12 EST --- Mike, As in this review there are several people envolved, we should fall back to a voting decision (as in old Fedora.us days). At least two or three other reviewers should express their opinion by placing a comment like PUBLISH++ or PUBLISH--. But if no one expresses his opinion, lets say in the next 48 hours, I will approve this package changing the blocking ticket from FE-REVIEW to FE-ACCEPT. (I still would love to see a comment from someone with a 64bit system.) My vote is for approval. PUBLISH++ MD5SUMS: 6387568f71b4c7fd6afe62afdb5e1972 nagios-plugins-1.4.3-5.src.rpm 2c40fc69d51cc979e85150870a1daa93 nagios-plugins-1.4.3.tar.gz 6af2d874922483154a5e8adf87e066b3 nagios-plugins.spec 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 193884] Review Request: tolua++ - A tool to integrate C/C++ code with Lua
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: tolua++ - A tool to integrate C/C++ code with Lua https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193884 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-03 18:41 EST --- This version applies an soname to the lib, whilst ensuring the binary doesn't get one. It's a somewhat ugly hack, calling gcc again after the main build, to compile the binary but the result is good. I've been sofar unable to patch the scons package to use separate flags for the lib and bin, whatever I do they both end up using the same flags :-). Perhaps this is acceptable enough (in the meantime). http://dribble.org.uk/tolua++.spec http://dribble.org.uk/tolua++-1.0.92-3.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 181599] Review Request: gallery2: web based photo album software
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: gallery2: web based photo album software https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181599 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-03 18:58 EST --- Note the end of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines -- 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 178904] Review Request: Monodevelop
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: Monodevelop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178904 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-03 19:10 EST --- Spec Name or Url: http://www.smmp.salford.ac.uk/packages/monodevelop.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://www.smmp.salford.ac.uk/packages/monodevelop-0.11-5.src.rpm Point #41 addressed - however, it's not as cleanly as I'd like. Not sure if it's a bug in desktop-file-install or just me, but I've had to manually removed monodevelop.desktop from %datadir/applications using rm -f. It does the same job, but it's not as nice -- 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 193957] Review Request: nant
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: nant https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193957 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-03 19:29 EST --- Spec URL: http://www.smmp.salford.ac.uk/packages/nant.spec SRPM URL: http://www.smmp.salford.ac.uk/packages/nant-0.85-2.src.rpm Fixed a couple of problems in the spec file -- 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 193787] Review Request: scite - Scintilla based text editor
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: scite - Scintilla based text editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193787 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776, 177841 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-03 20:30 EST --- I was not aware of your community involvement. I think folks who need sponsors should be encouraged to tell us these kinds of things. I will be happy to sponsor you; go ahead and request cvsextras membership. Note: desktop-file-install logs the following warning: /var/tmp/scite-1.69-2.fc6-root-mockbuild/usr/share/applications/fedora-SciTE.desktop: warning: non-standard key MultipleArgs lacks the X- prefix I believe this should be removed. It seems to be something that was in use some time ago but no longer. Review: * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. * source files match upstream: 3f84986922ccf9c21a1481ba85153be6 scite169.tgz 3f84986922ccf9c21a1481ba85153be6 scite169.tgz-srpm * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: scite = 1.69-2.fc6 - libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgmodule-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgthread-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit) * no shared libraries are present. * package is not relocatable. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * %clean is present. * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. X GUI app, with desktop file. But desktop-file-install complains as above. -- 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 189374] Re-Review Request: jed: an editor
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: jed: an editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189374
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-03 21:23 EST ---
(In reply to comment #4)
W: jed prereq-use /sbin/install-info
Still seems to be there in -3.
[obsolete-not-provided]
These were obsoleted in 2002. Nothing should require them. (And, technically,
it doens't really obsolete xjed - we just stopped building it because it's
a bad idea.)
Maybe they should just disappear.
Nah, I'll dig it out. Probably bad autoconf somewhere.
I did check that the usual make LIBTOOL=/usr/bin/libtool bit doesn't work.
By the way, could you add %{?_smp_mflags} to the make line? I love my parallel
make.
--
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] 2006-06-03 21:39 EST --- The ugly shell trick is still there, but I don't consider it a blocker. And now I'm scared to look at the filesystem spec... ;) The Release tag wasn't incremented for this latest set of changes, even though it was updated in the %changelog section. Make sure that the lateset %changelog entry matches the Release: tag before requesting a new build. I'll approve this as soon as we get clarification on the license issue. -- 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 188496] Review Request: PyQt-qscintilla
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: PyQt-qscintilla https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188496 [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 188496] Review Request: PyQt-qscintilla
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: PyQt-qscintilla https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188496 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-03 22:44 EST --- I'l go ahead and review the FC5 version. I can't compare against the upstream source since it doesn't exist any longer, but I can compare against what's in Red Hat's lookaside store from the FC5 PyQt package which seems good enough. This package places various files in /usr/share/sip/qtext, which seems odd as that name looks to be unrelated to the package. Plus, nothing seems to own /usr/share/sip. I guess those files are the SIP-generated bindings, but the directory ownership is still an issue. The -debuginfo package is empty. It looks like the makefile strips the library, which it shouldn't be doing: make: Entering directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/PyQt-x11-gpl-3.15/qtext' cp -f qtext.so /var/tmp/PyQt-qscintilla-3.15-1.fc5-root-mockbuild/usr/lib64/python2.4/site-packages/q text.so strip /var/tmp/PyQt-qscintilla-3.15-1.fc5-root-mockbuild/usr/lib64/python2.4/site-packages/qtext.so The Makefile is generated, and I don't really know enough about what's generated to know how to convince it not to strip the library. Review: * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. * source files match upstream (or at least Core's cache): 8e70fac4f403fb759b537008170ff446 PyQt-x11-gpl-3.15.tar.gz 8e70fac4f403fb759b537008170ff446 PyQt-x11-gpl-3.15.tar.gz-srpm O 3.15 is not the latest version, but it must match what's in each particular FC release. * BuildRequires are proper. * package builds in mock (FC5, x86_64). * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: qtext.so()(64bit) PyQt-qscintilla = 3.15-1.fc5 = PyQt = 3.15 libX11.so.6()(64bit) libXext.so.6()(64bit) libqscintilla.so.6()(64bit) libqt-mt.so.3()(64bit) python(abi) = 2.4 python-abi = 2.4 * shared libraries are present, internal to Python. * package is not relocatable. X owns the directories it creates (/usr/share/sip) * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * %clean is present. * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. * not a GUI app. -- 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 191523] Review Request: perl-XML-Stream
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-XML-Stream https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-04 00:37 EST --- Built for devel, FE-4, FE-5. Thanks for the review! :) -- 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 191540] Review Request: perl-Net-XMPP
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-Net-XMPP https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191540 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-04 00:38 EST --- Built for devel, FE-4, FE-5. Thanks for the review! :) -- 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 191545] Review Request: perl-Net-Jabber
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-Net-Jabber https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191545 Bug 191545 depends on bug 191540, which changed state. Bug 191540 Summary: Review Request: perl-Net-XMPP https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191540 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- 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 191545] Review Request: perl-Net-Jabber
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-Net-Jabber https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191545 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-04 00:39 EST --- Built for devel, FE-4, FE-5. Thanks for the review :) -- 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 193884] Review Request: tolua++ - A tool to integrate C/C++ code with Lua
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: tolua++ - A tool to integrate C/C++ code with Lua https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193884 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-04 01:04 EST --- Looks good, its only one line in the specfile, I've seen far worse hacks. Approving again. -- 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
