[Bug 194436] New: Review Request: wormux - 2D Kill 'em all game
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=194436 Summary: Review Request: wormux - 2D Kill 'em all game 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://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/wormux.spec SRPM URL: http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/wormux-0.7.2-1.src.rpm Description: 2D kill 'em all game in the same vein as Scorched Earth -- 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 192060] Review Request: blobwars - Mission and Objective based 2D Platform 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: blobwars - Mission and Objective based 2D Platform Game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192060 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 02:16 EST --- Imported and finally build (buildsys troubles), closing. -- 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 194320] Review Request: im-chooser
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: im-chooser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194320 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 02:34 EST --- Ok, that makes sense. I'll put this into Extras then. -- 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 168310] Review Request: swish-e bkyoung
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: swish-e bkyoung https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=168310 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 03:35 EST --- Closing as wontfix -- 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 168310] Review Request: swish-e bkyoung
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: swish-e bkyoung https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=168310 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163776, 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 168690] Review Request: pyBackPack (GTK+ Python backup tool)
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: pyBackPack (GTK+ Python backup tool) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=168690 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX OtherBugsDependingO|163776, 177841 | nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 03:39 EST --- Ok, closing as wontfix. -- 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 175502] Review Request: perl-Gtk2-Spell
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-Gtk2-Spell https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=175502 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|177841 | nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 03:40 EST --- Remving form FE_NEEDSPONSOR tracker bug, since this is 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 169345] Review Request: SEC - Simple Event Correlator
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: SEC - Simple Event Correlator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=169345 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 03:48 EST --- (In reply to comment #9) - Source0 : I get a '404 Not found' on the suggested http://download.sourceforge.net/simple-evcorr/sec-2.3.3.tar.gz ; my proposed http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/simple-evcorr/sec-2.3.3.tar.gz does not yield any errors ... No but if you wget that you get a html page instead of the source. The above vewrsion is correct, yes sometiems it gives 404 as its a round robin dns to the mirrors and not all mirrors seem to carry all packages all of the time an other solutin is welcome, but for now we usually use the above form, the prdownloads form is wrong as it doesn't get you the source. Besides that I wonder where do we stand with this, are you waiting for a review of the version posted in comment #9, ifso could you first please address JPO's comments about the pid file and logrotate stuff and post a new version then I will be happy todo a review (I know I promised that earlier too, but I forgot to put myself on the CC-list so I missed your new versipon luckily John picked it up. About rpmlint that is AFAIK not .rpmmacros related are you sure you have the latest version of rpmlint (from the FE-devel branch)? -- 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] 2006-06-08 03:54 EST --- Silke, Are you still interested in this? Ifso it would be nice if you could provide a new SRPM which addresses the issues rased in Comment #6, or are you waiting for a full review before submitting a new version? Shouldn't you respond within one week from now, I'll presume you have lost interest into getting this package into FE and close this PR. -- 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 194300] Review Request: compat-erlang
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: compat-erlang https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194300 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 04:00 EST --- Built on FC4, FC5 and FC6. It seems that the packages are not yet available for rebuilding erlang-esdl, and I have to wait till they get to the repositories. -- 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 175047] Review Request: NetworkManager-openvpn
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: NetworkManager-openvpn https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=175047 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 04:01 EST --- Tim, I can understand that you may've got a bit frustated because of the lack of someone willing to sponsor you in the beginning of this Review where you were very responsive. However currently your responsiveness is lacking. If you can become once again as responsive as in the beginning and post a new version, then I'll review it and sponsor you under the condition that someone in the CC-list does some funtionality testing as I currently have no need for this myself. -- 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] 2006-06-08 04:08 EST ---
I'm not sure on the advisability of moving all of the mono stuff to %{_datadir},
but I will carry on watching upstream and see what happens, though I can't see
there being much enthusiasm for such a change.
--
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 177082] Review Request: wm-icons
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: wm-icons https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177082 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 04:16 EST --- Jim, Are you still interested in this? Ifso it would be nice if you could provide a new SRPM which addresses the issues rased in Comment #3, or are you waiting for a full review before submitting a new version? Shouldn't you respond within one week from now, I'll presume you have lost interest into getting this package into FE and close this PR. Chris, If Jim doesn't respond in a reasonable amount of time feel free to take this one over. -- 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] 2006-06-08 04:49 EST --- Spec URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/boo.spec SRPM URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/boo-0.7.6.2237-1.src.rpm - Bump to new version Multiple changes to the spec file Ensure that there are no ownership problems Disabled debug package (empty) Repeat after me... nant is insane. nant is bad. nant is unpleasant -- 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 176253] Review Request: clement-2.1
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: clement-2.1 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176253 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 05:08 EST --- JMP, Your work and responsives above look good (at first glance), so I might be willing to sponsor you. You must understand however that things are currently organised in FE in such a way that once you are sponsored you get full CVS access to all packages. Thus having one good package ready for review usually isn't enough to get you sponsored. There are 2 ways to proceed from here for us (me since I'm concidering sponsering you) to get to learn you better: 1) You review a couple of packages from others see bug 163776 for a list of Review Requests that need a Reviewer, don't worry about not being competent enough todo a review, just add my to the CC-list and I'll watch over your back. 2) Create some more packages and put me in the CC-field of the review request. Or (probably the best) a combiantion of these 2. What also helps is activity in other Fedora projects such as translations etc. -- 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 177106] Review Request: libgdgeda - graphical library for gEDA
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: libgdgeda - graphical library for gEDA https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177106 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 05:09 EST --- Second ping, are you still interested in this? If not please let me know I think I know someoneelse who is willing to package the entire geda suite for FE. Shouldn't you respond within one week from now, I'll presume you have lost interest into getting this package into FE and close this PR. -- 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 177580] Review Request: lat (LDAP Administration Tool)
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: lat (LDAP Administration Tool) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177580 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 05:12 EST --- Is anyone going to pick this up? If not I suggest we close this as wontfix -- 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 193933] Review Request: freepops - free webmails to pop3 daemon
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: freepops - free webmails to pop3 daemon https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193933 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 05:29 EST --- Hi, In order to get sponsored you must first understand that things are currently organised in FE in such a way that once you are sponsored you get full CVS access to all packages. Thus having one good package ready for review usually isn't enough to get you sponsored. There are 2 ways to proceed from here for us (the FE community) to get to learn you better: 1) You review a couple of packages from others see bug 163776 for a list of Review Requests that need a Reviewer, don't worry about not being competent enough todo a review, just add me to the CC-list and I'll watch over your back. 2) Create some more packages and link to them from the BZ ticket. Or (probably the best) a combination of these 2. What also helps is activity in other Fedora projects such as translations etc. What would also help is filling in a real name and using a somewhat more real eamil buildsys@ doesn't inspire much confidence (and cannot be googled to see if you have contributed to other OSS projects which is also always a pre). -- 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 05:29 EST --- There doesn't seem to be any way to avoid the requirement for sponsorship. Anyway, thanks! I've now built my packages, though they don't seem to be available to yum yet. -- 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 CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 05:31 EST --- Hi, In order to get sponsored you must first understand that things are currently organised in FE in such a way that once you are sponsored you get full CVS access to all packages. Thus having one good package ready for review usually isn't enough to get you sponsored. There are 2 ways to proceed from here for us (the FE community) to get to learn you better: 1) You review a couple of packages from others see FE-NEW for a list of Review Requests that need a Reviewer, don't worry about not being competent enough todo a review, just add me to the CC-list and I'll watch over your back. 2) Create some more packages and link to them from the BZ ticket. Or (probably the best) a combination of these 2. What also helps is activity in other Fedora projects such as translations etc. Also it is a good idea to read the howto become a contributer packaging guidelines and review guidlines wiki pages thoroughly first, if you had done that you could have known that you had to make this bug blok FE_NEEDSPONSOR yourself. -- 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 177580] Review Request: lat (LDAP Administration Tool)
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: lat (LDAP Administration Tool) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177580 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 05:32 EST --- OK OK, I'll offer to maintain it, but if anyone else more interested comes along, they're welcome to it. Here are my packages: SPEC: http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/lat/lat.spec SRPM: http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/lat/lat-1.0.5-1.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 180205] Review Request: gnome-menu-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: gnome-menu-editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=180205 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added QAContact|fedora-extras- |fedora-package- |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 05:35 EST --- Damien, Are you still interested in this? Ifso it would be nice if you could provide a new SRPM which addresses the issues rased in the comments above. Also in order to get sponsored you must first understand that things are currently organised in FE in such a way that once you are sponsored you get full CVS access to all packages. Thus having one good package ready for review usually isn't enough to get you sponsored. There are 2 ways to proceed from here for us (the FE community) to get to learn you better: 1) You review a couple of packages from others see FE-NEW for a list of Review Requests that need a Reviewer, don't worry about not being competent enough todo a review, just add me to the CC-list and I'll watch over your back. 2) Create some more packages and link to them from this BZ ticket. Or (probably the best) a combination of these 2. What also helps is activity in other Fedora projects such as translations etc. And last but not least read the howto become a contributer packaging guidelines and review guidlines wiki pages thoroughly first, judging from the above comments you don't seem to have read those uptill now. Shouldn't you respond within one week from now, I'll presume you have lost interest into getting this package into FE and close this PR. -- 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 05:36 EST --- Already built in devel. Thanks 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 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|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 193929] Review Request: knetstats
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: knetstats https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193929 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 06:21 EST --- Hi Chitlesh, I see (from google) that you're already active in other area's fo the Fedora project, good! As such I'm willing to sponsor you, but first you must show some more / better understanding of the FE packaging guidelines. There are 2 ways to show this better understanding: 1) You review a couple of packages from others see bug 163776 for a list of Review Requests that need a Reviewer, don't worry about not being competent enough todo a review, just add me to the CC-list and I'll watch over your back. 2) Create some more packages and put me in the CC for the Review Request Or (probably the best) a combination of these 2. Now some remarks related to this review: (In reply to comment #4) Thanks for such a reply, I have updated the spec file with respect to what have been documented above except: No. 7. Because I was unable to get scons root access/permissions while its execution. You really _must_ fix this, the trick is not to give scons root permission, but to change the build so that it doesnot try to install files outside of the buildroot No. 9. Because It automatically adds itself to the kmenu-Internet. Do I have to use desktop-file-utils nevertheless ? Yes, and since it already puts the .desktop file under /usr/share/applicatiuons you should use the --delete-original option to desktop-file-install. -- 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 177580] Review Request: lat (LDAP Administration Tool)
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: lat (LDAP Administration Tool) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177580 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|177841 | nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 06:26 EST --- Ok, Removing the FE_NEEDSPONSOR blocker then. I guess you kinda expect todo the review 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 193632] Review Request: tkdnd
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: tkdnd
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193632
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 06:28 EST ---
(In reply to comment #8)
Done.
Spec URL: http://amsn.hoentjen.eu/download/tkdnd.spec
SRPM URL: http://amsn.hoentjen.eu/download/tkdnd-1.0a2-5.src.rpm
about %{version}: It might be a good idea since after 4 years of no updates
there is work being done on tkdnd 2
Thanks again for the help
--
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 177580] Review Request: lat (LDAP Administration Tool)
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: lat (LDAP Administration Tool) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177580 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 06:31 EST --- You're welcome to review it if you feel the urge, but I'm in no big hurry :-) -- 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 193929] Review Request: knetstats
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: knetstats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193929
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 07:27 EST ---
Couple of other points, it might be better to leave a blank line between
different %changelog entries as it's easier on the eye and perhaps be a little
more verbose as there's no mention of the other changes you made such as
dropping gcc-c++ etc.
I read somewhere on the wiki (although I can't find it at the mo), that patches
should be named in the following way to avoid name collisions with other
packages:
name-version-description.patch
For example:
knetstats-1.5-rpathfix.patch
It also advised against using the %{name} and %{version} macros here,
particularly because the version indicates the version of the package this patch
was introduced in, so for example if you were to upgrade to version 1.6, the
patch would still be knetstats-1.5-rpathfix.patch, if it was still applicable.
Anyway Hans will keep you right, he sponsored me 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 191492] Review Request: unuran-0.7.2
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: unuran-0.7.2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191492 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 07:45 EST --- Neal, It seems (from the large amount of Review Requests) that you're seriously interested in becoming an FE contributer. However although serious interest is a very good start you must understand that things are currently organised in FE in such a way that once you are sponsored you get full CVS access to all packages. Thus before anyone can sponsor you we (he) should first get to know you a little bit. I'm able to sponsor people and as said I believe that you're seriously interested (good!) So I would like to sponsor you once I get to know you a little better. For this I would like to suggest the following: -you choice 3 of the submitted packages for me to review -we work together to get these 3 packages approved -once these 3 are approved you can create an account in the account system and I'll sponsor you. Notice that if because of interdeps 3 is a bad number 4 or 5 also is ok :) Does this sound like a plan? -- 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 07:47 EST --- Nikolai, Are you still interested in this? ifso please ask for some better ftp / http hosting on the Fedora Extras mailinglist, I'm sure someone will offer you some space if you ask. Then upload your latest work to this new space and post the URL's here. Shouldn't you respond within one week from now, I'll presume you have lost interest into getting this package into FE and close this PR. -- 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 193929] Review Request: knetstats
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: knetstats https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193929 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 07:49 EST --- NEEDSWORK: * use icon cache scriptlets, see GTK+ icon cache on http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/ScriptletSnippets * use desktop-file-install for .desktop file, see desktop files on http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines Since this is your first package submissino, it's a good idea to look over all of those ScriptletSnippets and Packaging Guidelines pages, if you haven't done so already. -- 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 185531] Review Request: fcron, a task scheduler
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: fcron, a task scheduler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185531 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 07:49 EST --- My tests show everything working right. There are many rpmlint errors related to setuid/setgid/perms which are ignorable in my opinion. The following error seems also to be ignorable to me: W: fcron dangerous-command-in-%postun userdel However this one should be fixed: W: fcron service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/fcron And there is still the bogus error that should be ignored: E: fcron incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/fcron ; -- 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] 2006-06-08 07:50 EST ---
Mike,
Instead of just excluding the ppc arch could you try to use conditional blocks
like the one below:
...
%ifnarch ppc ppc64
%files sensors
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%{_libdir}/nagios/plugins/check_sensors
%endif
...
I will attach a possible patch (not tested as I don't have access to ppc
systems).
--
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] 2006-06-08 07:55 EST --- Created an attachment (id=130733) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=130733action=view) Do not create the sensors plugin in ppc builds -- 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 185531] Review Request: fcron, a task scheduler
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: fcron, a task scheduler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185531 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 08:19 EST --- (In reply to comment #39) However this one should be fixed: W: fcron service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/fcron fcron have to be enabled by defaut because one of the features of fcron is the possibility to run command after some delay since boot time. -- 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 185531] Review Request: fcron, a task scheduler
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: fcron, a task scheduler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185531 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 08:23 EST --- fcron have to be enabled by defaut because one of the features of fcron is the possibility to run command after some delay since boot time. That doesn't mean that fcron should be automatically enabled. Of course starting fcron is necessary for a working fcron, but still shouldn't be started automatically, only at user's will. -- 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 194470] New: Review Request: php-magickwand
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=194470 Summary: Review Request: php-magickwand 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/php-magickwand.spec SRPM URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/php-magickwand-0.1.8-2.src.rpm Description: MagickWand for PHP is a native PHP interface to the new ImageMagick MagickWand API. It is an almost complete port of the ImageMagick C API, excluding some X-Server related functionality, and progress monitoring. -- 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 194470] Review Request: php-magickwand
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-magickwand https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194470 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||163776 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 185531] Review Request: fcron, a task scheduler
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: fcron, a task scheduler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185531 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 09:22 EST --- Only root can start fcron, a user cannot. (In reply to comment #41) fcron have to be enabled by defaut because one of the features of fcron is the possibility to run command after some delay since boot time. That doesn't mean that fcron should be automatically enabled. Si justement (sorry, I don't know how to say that in english). Of course starting fcron is necessary for a working fcron, but still shouldn't be started automatically, only at user's will. Because only root can start fcron, a user cannot. And people who power up the system don't have necessarely root's password. crond is enabled by default -- 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 194479] New: Review Request: php-idn
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=194479 Summary: Review Request: php-idn 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/php-idn.spec SRPM URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/php-idn-1.1-6.src.rpm Description: This is the PHP API for the GNU LibIDN software made by Simon Josefsson. It's intention is to have international characters in the DNS 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 194479] Review Request: php-idn
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-idn https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194479 [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 194481] New: Review Request: eggdrop
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=194481 Summary: Review Request: eggdrop 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/eggdrop.spec SRPM URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/eggdrop-1.6.17-3.src.rpm Description: Eggdrop is the world's most popular Open Source IRC bot, designed for flexibility and ease of use. It is extendable with Tcl scripts and/or C modules, has support for the big five IRC networks and is able to form botnets, share partylines and userfiles between bots. -- 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 194481] Review Request: eggdrop
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: eggdrop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194481 [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 185531] Review Request: fcron, a task scheduler
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: fcron, a task scheduler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185531 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 09:48 EST --- (In reply to comment #42) Because only root can start fcron, a user cannot. And people who power up the system don't have necessarely root's password. crond is enabled by default In my sentence user is used to distinguish the user and the packager. So to state it otherwise, fcrond automatic startup at boot shouldn't be enabled in the default case, the administrator should enable it 'manually'. Imagine an install of 'everything' in extras... And even if the administrator installs only fcron, it still shouldn't be enabled at startup automatically. -- 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 09:55 EST --- More packages are in bug #194470, #194479 and #194481. I think more will follow, when I've got time for this. And sorry, yes I forgot to block FE_NEEDSPONSOR for this bug report. -- 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 191589] Review Request: qsa: Qt Script for Applications
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: qsa: Qt Script for Applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191589 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 10:13 EST --- NEEDSWORK: * qsa.spec (and probably) qsa's configure script assumes QTLIB=%qtdir/lib QTINC=%qtdir/include which isn't necessarily true. In particular, on x86_64, QTLIB=%qtdir/lib64. Further, future iterations of qt4 may move QTLIB=%_libdir and/or QTINC=%_includedir. specfile patch forthcoming. -- 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 191589] Review Request: qsa: Qt Script for Applications
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: qsa: Qt Script for Applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191589 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added 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 191589] Review Request: qsa: Qt Script for Applications
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: qsa: Qt Script for Applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191589
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 10:19 EST ---
Created an attachment (id=130748)
-- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=130748action=view)
fix QTLIB,QTINC
fix QTLIB,QTINC
use install -p
only libqsa.so - -devel, others in main pkg
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 10:42 EST ---
NEEDSWORK
* Source's should be full URL:
Source:
ftp://ftp.trolltech.com/qsa/source/qsa-x11-opensource-%{version}.tar.gz
--
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 193156] Review Request: devallocator
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: devallocator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193156 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 10:43 EST --- This package is required by the EAL4 LSPP Effort going on for RHEL5. Basically the requirement states that all device allocation for a use has to happen manually by the user, and needs to be auditited. So hal/udev combination can not automatically setup a USB device or a rw-cdrom. The user needs to do this manually. Steve could you further elaborate. -- 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 193156] Review Request: devallocator
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: devallocator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193156
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 10:53 EST ---
That functionality does seem pretty scary. Can this not run in conjunction with
udev or hal?
The %files section looks a little weird.
%doc conf/dev_allocator.conf -- no abs path?
leading slashes on %{_libdir}
and I think the manfile can be handled with mandir alias.
Also, do we really need the .a file? We _really_ don't want things to link
statically, unless there is a specific need.
--
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 193632] Review Request: tkdnd
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: tkdnd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193632 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 11:00 EST --- Looks good! Only two (nitpicking) minor issues: MUST * Source matches upstream: 43c91da595aade4978e2e5e820ab0fc9 tkdnd-1.0a2.tar.gz * rpmlint output clean * Spec file legible and in Am. English * No excessive BuildRequires: * BSD license ok, license file included * No .desktop file needed * No -devel subpackage needed * No need for -docs subpackage * No duplicate %files * Permissions look ok MUSTFIX === * Remove the extra directory in %doc by adding a wildcard: %doc doc/* * Move the rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT to the very first line in %install SHOULD == * You need BuildRequires: xorg-x11-devel if you plan to build on FC4. You can do this by either forking the spec files in CVS, or adding the following to the current spec file: %if %fedora = 4 BuildRequires: xorg-x11-devel %else BuildRequires: libXext-devel %endif * An alpha release of version 2.0 is available. Have you considered upgrading, or is the alpha version not stable enough? * Notify upstream about the 64-bit build issues and send them the patch. -- 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 193156] Review Request: devallocator
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: devallocator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193156 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 11:22 EST --- The LSPP security target states that no automatic labeling is to be done without the administrator having done it. Dan's statement of replacing udev/hal is somewhat misleading. We can use udev/hal for initial labeling, but we will have to make the init script stop them when init is complete. When the system is operational and ready for users to log in, device allocation must be done manually. For example, you may want to designate a printer for secret documents. Or change it to be Top Secret. We cannot have a hotplug event to come along and change the level. Regarding the review, we just need to make sure it conforms to FC/E 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 191589] Review Request: qsa: Qt Script for Applications
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: qsa: Qt Script for Applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191589
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 11:31 EST ---
Thanks but I have found an Bug in the Qt packae the variable for the include
path of the QtTest is wrong it show to %{prefix}/include but it must show
%{prefix}/include/QtTest.
So the line qtinc %(pkg-config QtTest --variable=includedir) must be
qtinc %(pkg-config QtCore --variable=prefix)/include
--
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 191589] Review Request: qsa: Qt Script for Applications
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: qsa: Qt Script for Applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191589 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 11:37 EST --- Thanks. I only chose QtTest because the --includedir output *was* prefix/include. I suppose we could do something not-so-clean-but-still-should-work like: %define qtinc %(pkg-config QtCore --variable=includedir)/.. -- 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 185531] Review Request: fcron, a task scheduler
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: fcron, a task scheduler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185531 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 11:39 EST --- Missing %lang(fr) for French man pages. -- 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 193156] Review Request: devallocator
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: devallocator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193156 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 11:57 EST --- Updated to fix above comments Spec URL: ftp://people.redhat.com/dwalsh/SELinux/devallocator.spec SRPM URL: ftp://people.redhat.com/dwalsh/SELinux/devallocator-0.5.4-2.src.rpm Description: This package contains the devallocator tool which is required for LSPP Conformance. When the system is operational and ready for users to log in, device allocation must be done manually. For example, you may want to designate a printer for secret documents. Or change it to be Top Secret. Hotplug events cannot be allowed to change the level. dev_allocator is required to replace hal/udev after system startable. Removable Devices need to be manually allocated by users in an MLS environment. This tool allows for the auditing of these events. Automatic allocation of devices is not allowed in an LSPP environment. -- 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 191589] Review Request: qsa: Qt Script for Applications
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: qsa: Qt Script for Applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191589 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 12:15 EST --- Here the next version: http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/qsmartcard/qsa-1.2.1-5FC5.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 191589] Review Request: qsa: Qt Script for Applications
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: qsa: Qt Script for Applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191589 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 12:31 EST --- It'll speed the review process a bit too if you could also post links to the specfile as well. That way, I won't have to redownload the entire source over and over 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
[Bug 191589] Review Request: qsa: Qt Script for Applications
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: qsa: Qt Script for Applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191589
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 12:38 EST ---
%files list is still wrong. In particular, only libqsa.so should be
in -devel, easiest template to use is something like:
%files
%{qtlib}/lib*.so.*
%files devel
%{qtlib}/lib*.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 191589] Review Request: qsa: Qt Script for Applications
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: qsa: Qt Script for Applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191589 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 12:39 EST --- ok here the URL of the spec file. http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/qsmartcard/qsa.spec?download it is every try the same. -- 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 193632] Review Request: tkdnd
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: tkdnd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193632 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 12:39 EST --- (In reply to comment #10) Looks good! Only two (nitpicking) minor issues: MUSTFIX === * Remove the extra directory in %doc by adding a wildcard: %doc doc/* Yes I saw this myself a while ago but forgot to fix it, fixed now. * Move the rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT to the very first line in %install whoops, fixed SHOULD == * You need BuildRequires: xorg-x11-devel if you plan to build on FC4. You can do this by either forking the spec files in CVS, or adding the following to the current spec file: %if %fedora = 4 BuildRequires: xorg-x11-devel %else BuildRequires: libXext-devel %endif Should I build on FC4? If yes, I think I will go for a fork. * An alpha release of version 2.0 is available. Have you considered upgrading, or is the alpha version not stable enough? I considered, but the alpha version is drop only, no drag yet. * Notify upstream about the 64-bit build issues and send them the patch. I think this makes more sence for 2.0 only since i don't think they will release another 1.x. I will check if 2.0 builds ok for 64-bit after I get my new computer (tomorrow). Spec URL: http://amsn.hoentjen.eu/download/tkdnd.spec SRPM URL: http://amsn.hoentjen.eu/download/tkdnd-1.0a2-6.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 191589] Review Request: qsa: Qt Script for Applications
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: qsa: Qt Script for Applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191589
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 12:42 EST ---
And
URL: ftp://ftp.trolltech.com/qsa/source/qsa-x11-opensource-1.2.1.tar.gz
Source: qsa-x11-opensource-%{version}.tar.gz
should be:
URL:http://www.trolltech.com/products/qt/
Source:
ftp://ftp.trolltech.com/qsa/source/qsa-x11-opensource-%{version}.tar.gz
--
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 191589] Review Request: qsa: Qt Script for Applications
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: qsa: Qt Script for Applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191589 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #130748|0 |1 is obsolete|| -- 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 178922] Review Request: asterisk - The Open Source PBX
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: asterisk - The Open Source PBX https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178922 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 12:48 EST --- Security: http://www.asterisk.org/node/95 -- 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 191538] Review Request: qsynth - Qt based Fluidsynth GUI front end
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: qsynth - Qt based Fluidsynth GUI front end https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191538 [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 191589] Review Request: qsa: Qt Script for Applications
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: qsa: Qt Script for Applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191589 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 13:03 EST --- the the next please::) http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/qsmartcard/qsa-1.2.1-6FC5.src.rpm?download http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/qsmartcard/qsa.spec?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 178922] Review Request: asterisk - The Open Source PBX
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: asterisk - The Open Source PBX https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178922 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 13:09 EST --- (In reply to comment #45) Security: http://www.asterisk.org/node/95 Yup... I'm working on new SRPMs for Asterisk and related packages... just waiting for some local mock builds to finish. -- 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 175047] Review Request: NetworkManager-openvpn
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: NetworkManager-openvpn https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=175047 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 13:10 EST --- Just some feedback: I will put a new version online ASAP. The problem is right now that we are preparing for the RoboCup 2006 robot soccer tournament that we are heading for next week (http://www.robocup2006.org) and I probably won't make it before that event (just a side note: robots work just fine with FC3 :-) ). Will be back around June 20th and will push a new version by then at the latest. -- 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 175047] Review Request: NetworkManager-openvpn
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: NetworkManager-openvpn https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=175047 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 13:17 EST --- Ok, waiting until 20-6 (or so) is no problem, no need to hurry. -- 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 191538] Review Request: qsynth - Qt based Fluidsynth GUI front end
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: qsynth - Qt based Fluidsynth GUI front end
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191538
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 13:20 EST ---
Hi Fernando. Here are some comments. Some of these may seem nit-picky - sorry
about that...
* Release should use %{?dist}
* Alignment is inconsistent with rest of Fedora, so..
Summary: Qt based Fluidsynth GUI front end
Name: qsynth
Version: 0.2.5
..should be...
Summary: Qt based Fluidsynth GUI front end
Name:qsynth
Version: 0.2.5
* Some people prefer that we use %makeinstall, although I don't know if it's
required. I've been using it in all my spec files based on somebody's request.
* Don't install the generic INSTALL file.
* Remember to put version info for each changelog entry
rpmlint ../RPMS/i386/qsynth-0.2.5-2.i386.rpm
W: qsynth no-version-in-last-changelog
* I believe you should use the following before %configure...
unset QTDIR || : ; . /etc/profile.d/qt.sh
export QTLIB=${QTDIR}/lib QTINC=${QTDIR}/include
That's it for now. Thanks!
--
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 181035] Review Request: luks-tools
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: luks-tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181035 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 13:25 EST --- Created an attachment (id=130765) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=130765action=view) Make luks-setup build clean on FC5 The attached patch adds a BuildRequires on check-devel and adds /sbin:/usr/sbin to the path to the call to %configure so that it picks up cryptsetup and other tools that it uses. -- 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 191538] Review Request: qsynth - Qt based Fluidsynth GUI front end
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: qsynth - Qt based Fluidsynth GUI front end https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191538 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 13:28 EST --- One more thing.. I tried this with VintageDreams soundfont, and found that I had to turn the gain down to 10 or less in order to stop the output from red-lining. The gain setting defaults to 100. Is this expected? -- 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] 2006-06-08 13:31 EST --- FC-3 branch requires FESCO approval. 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 194519] New: Review Request: q - Equational programming language
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=194519 Summary: Review Request: q - Equational programming language 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://math.ifi.unizh.ch/fedora/spec/q.spec SRPM URL: http://math.ifi.unizh.ch/fedora/5/i386/SRPMS.gemi/q-7.1-1.src.rpm Description: Q is a powerful and extensible functional programming language based on the term rewriting calculus. You specify an arbitrary system of equations which the interpreter uses as rewrite rules to reduce expressions to normal form. Q is useful for scientific programming and other advanced applications, and also as a sophisticated kind of desktop calculator. The distribution includes the Q programming tools, a standard library, add-on modules for interfacing to Curl, GNU dbm, ODBC, GNU Octave, GGI, ImageMagick, Tcl/Tk, XML/XSLT and IBM's Data Explorer, a SWIG module, an Apache module, and an Emacs mode. -- 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 194300] Review Request: compat-erlang
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: compat-erlang https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194300 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 13:51 EST --- Ok, everything is going fine now, erlang-esdl and wings rebuilt against compat-erlang. Thanks for the help! -- 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 192413] libdhcp : IPv6 and IPv4 DHCP client and network configuration library API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: libdhcp : IPv6 and IPv4 DHCP client and network configuration library API https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192413 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||CURRENTRELEASE Fixed In Version||libdhcp-1.2 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 14:15 EST --- RE: dbus is way too heavy-weight for some of the really early boot places where you need to get a network. Perhaps so - I will ensure that the next ISC DHCP version that we ship, which will incorporate DHCPv6 support and D-BUS support natively, provides a sane, lightweight library interface for anaconda. Since libdhcp is now in Fedora Core, and is apparently being used by anaconda, this bug can now be closed as CURRENTRELEASE. -- 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 193933] Review Request: freepops - free webmails to pop3 daemon
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: freepops - free webmails to pop3 daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193933
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 14:30 EST ---
Here's a couple of quick items that need to be addressed:
1. Don't re-define %dist in your spec.
2. Inconsistant use of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT %{buildroot}. Pick one, and only use
that in your spec.
3. Why are your appending '.lsn' to the release? If there is no good reason,
drop it.
4. Why are you defining the BuildArch? If the package doesn't build on other
architectures, you should use the ExcludeArch. Once the package is approved,
you will need to have a bug filed in bugzilla for each architecture, describing
the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture.
The bug number should then be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding
ExcludeArch line. Until then, you will need to place the information in the
comments.
5. Drop both of the '%{__rm}' lines from the %prep section, they are
unnecessary.
In the future, I would suggest using the Fedora spec template, because most of
these issues are addressed there.
As Hans pointed out in Comment #2, you must demonstrate an understanding of
Fedora Extras Packaging Guidelines, before you can be sponsored.
--
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 193632] Review Request: tkdnd
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: tkdnd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193632 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 14:44 EST --- SHOULD == * You need BuildRequires: xorg-x11-devel if you plan to build on FC4. You can do this by either forking the spec files in CVS, or adding the following to the current spec file: %if %fedora = 4 BuildRequires: xorg-x11-devel %else BuildRequires: libXext-devel %endif Should I build on FC4? If yes, I think I will go for a fork. It's up to you either way. There's no requirement for you to build on FC4, and you can always decide to do it later if you wish. * An alpha release of version 2.0 is available. Have you considered upgrading, or is the alpha version not stable enough? I considered, but the alpha version is drop only, no drag yet. Ok. * Notify upstream about the 64-bit build issues and send them the patch. I think this makes more sence for 2.0 only since i don't think they will release another 1.x. I will check if 2.0 builds ok for 64-bit after I get my new computer (tomorrow). That's understandable. If you want to support both 1.0 and 2.0 being installed simultaneously then you'll probably want to name the new package tkdnd2, otherwise yum will only let you have one installed at a time. Spec URL: http://amsn.hoentjen.eu/download/tkdnd.spec SRPM URL: http://amsn.hoentjen.eu/download/tkdnd-1.0a2-6.src.rpm All MUSTFIX items have been fixed. 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 191589] Review Request: qsa: Qt Script for Applications
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: qsa: Qt Script for Applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191589 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 15:00 EST --- Personally, I'd feel more comfortable if you used (something like): %define qtinc %(dirname $(pkg-config QtCore --variable=includedir)) instead of %define qtinc %(pkg-config QtCore --variable=prefix)/include In case we ever do decide to move it out of the qt-prefix (to say, %_includedir). But that's your call as maintainer. -- 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 191589] Review Request: qsa: Qt Script for Applications
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: qsa: Qt Script for Applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191589 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 15:29 EST --- Yes this can be useful. So here the new one: http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/qsmartcard/qsa-1.2.1-7FC5.src.rpm?download http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/qsmartcard/qsa.spec?download rpmlint say that the doc part of the devel package are not nice.:( Or can we ignore this? -- 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 191589] Review Request: qsa: Qt Script for Applications
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: qsa: Qt Script for Applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191589 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 16:02 EST --- Learned something cool today about qmake, you may want to consider this cleaner/simpler method of determining QTDIR, QTINC, QTLIB: %define qtdir %(qmake4 -query QT_INSTALL_PREFIX) %define qtinc %(qmake4 -query QT_INSTALL_HEADERS) %define qtlib %(qmake4 -query QT_INSTALL_LIBS) re: rpmlint A couple of things: 1. make sure %defattr is *first*, so %files should be: %files %defattr(-,root,root) ... 2. why in -devel %defattr(755,root,root) instead of %defattr(-,root,root)? 3. Re: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding, --hidden-file-or-dir warnings. IMO, these are small-potatoes. You can fix these if you want, but it's not a blocker. -- 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 178922] Review Request: asterisk - The Open Source PBX
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: asterisk - The Open Source PBX https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178922 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 16:18 EST --- I've uploaded new SRPMs for Asterisk and related packages. Right now only the new SRPMs are there, I'll extract the spec files later... http://repo.ocjtech.us/asterisk-1.2/fedora/5/SRPMS/ -- 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 193059] Review Request: ibmasm
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: ibmasm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193059 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||194539 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 191589] Review Request: qsa: Qt Script for Applications
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: qsa: Qt Script for Applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191589 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 16:37 EST --- Ok now the package with the qmake use.:) http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/qsmartcard/qsa-1.2.1-8FC5.src.rpm?download http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/qsmartcard/qsa.spec?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 194420] Review Request: mlton, an optimizing compiler for Standard ML
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: mlton, an optimizing compiler for Standard ML https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194420 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 16:38 EST --- How are we going to do the bootstrapping? BTW, here is my spec file, it might contain something of interest: http://math.ifi.unizh.ch/fedora/spec/mlton.spec -- 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 191589] Review Request: qsa: Qt Script for Applications
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: qsa: Qt Script for Applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191589
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 16:52 EST ---
Change
%files devel
%defattr(0755,root,root)
%attr(0644,root,root)%{qtinc}/*
...
To
%files devel
%defattr(0644,root,root)
%{qtinc}/*
...
And we're *real* close. (unless you have a good reason for doing it your way).
I'll recheck all the blocker guidelines tomorrow morning...
--
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 16:52 EST --- (In reply to comment #4) 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. There are packages that include .so files without SONAME, e.g., R elfutils gcj compiled jar packages ... This is not a problem as long as they are not public libraries in /usr/lib. However it is probably easy to fix in the Makefile by adding -Wl,-soname,expat_erl.so for example to the link command. -- 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 178003] Review Request: tetex-lambda-jp
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: tetex-lambda-jp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178003 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 17:03 EST --- The links to spec and srpm do not work. -- 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 193342] Review Request: cegui - Free library providing windowing and widgets for graphics APIs / engines
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: cegui - Free library providing windowing and widgets for graphics APIs / engines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193342 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 17:38 EST --- Ok Hans, here's the latest version: http://dribble.org.uk/cegui.spec http://dribble.org.uk/cegui-0.4.1-5.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 192889] Review Request: openais standards based cluster framework
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: openais standards based cluster framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192889 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 17:57 EST --- I'm getting 403 forbidden on the srpm. Buildroot is still wrong. The /sbin/service requirement isn't needed as initscripts get pulled in due to deps in the Exceptions list. -- 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 193804] Review Request: glitz
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: glitz https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193804 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |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 192436] Review Request: xorg-x11-server-Xgl
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: xorg-x11-server-Xgl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192436 Bug 192436 depends on bug 193804, which changed state. Bug 193804 Summary: Review Request: glitz https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193804 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|NEW |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 193187] Review Request: pcsc-lite ccid
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: pcsc-lite ccid
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193187
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 18:32 EST ---
Thanks for the quick review Ville.
I've now updated the packages (and removed some bottlenecks so I can turn them
around faster).
here's the diff between the CORE proposed packages and the current EXTRAS to aid
the review the only question I have is the %doc for reader.conf.d/README
correct, or does the %doc do some magic I'm not aware of:
--- /usr/src/redhat/SPECS/pcsc-lite.spec2006-04-22 13:32:58.0
-0700
+++ ./pcsc-lite.spec2006-06-08 09:02:14.253045000 -0700
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
Name: pcsc-lite
Version:1.3.1
-Release:1%{?dist}
+Release:2
Summary:PC/SC Lite smart card framework and applications
Group: System Environment/Daemons
@@ -13,7 +13,6 @@
BuildRequires: libusb-devel = 0.1.7
BuildRequires: doxygen
-BuildRequires: graphviz
Requires(post): /sbin/chkconfig
Requires(preun): /sbin/chkconfig
Requires: pcsc-ifd-handler
@@ -57,8 +56,6 @@
%setup -q
%patch0 -p0
%patch1 -p1
-sed -i -e 's/^\(HAVE_DOT\s*=\s*\)/\1 YES/' doc/doxygen.conf.in
-
%build
%configure \
@@ -114,7 +111,7 @@
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%doc AUTHORS ChangeLog* COPYING DRIVERS HELP README SECURITY TODO
%dir %{_sysconfdir}/reader.conf.d/
-%{_sysconfdir}/reader.conf.d/README
+%doc %{_sysconfdir}/reader.conf.d/README
%ghost %config %{_sysconfdir}/reader.conf
%{_initrddir}/pcscd
%{_bindir}/formaticc
@@ -142,6 +139,11 @@
%changelog
+* Mon Jun 5 2006 Bob Relyea [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 1.3.1-2
+- Move to Fedora Core.
+- Remove dependency on graphviz.
+- Removed %%{_dist}
+
* Sat Apr 22 2006 Ville Skyttä ville.skytta at iki.fi - 1.3.1-1
- 1.3.1.
3c3
Release:2
---
Release:1%{?dist}
15a16
BuildRequires: graphviz
58a60,61
sed -i -e 's/^\(HAVE_DOT\s*=\s*\)/\1 YES/' doc/doxygen.conf.in
114c117
%doc %{_sysconfdir}/reader.conf.d/README
---
%{_sysconfdir}/reader.conf.d/README
142,146d144
* Mon Jun 5 2006 Bob Relyea [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 1.3.1-2
- Move to Fedora Core.
- Remove dependency on graphviz.
- Removed %%{_dist}
--- /usr/src/redhat/SPECS/ccid.spec 2006-04-22 13:33:57.0 -0700
+++ ./ccid.spec 2006-06-08 09:06:19.49782 -0700
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
Name: ccid
Version:1.0.1
-Release:1%{?dist}
+Release:2
Summary:Generic USB CCID smart card reader driver
Group: System Environment/Libraries
@@ -61,6 +61,9 @@
%changelog
+* Mon Jun 5 2006 Bob Relyea [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 1.0.1-2
+- Move to Fedora Core, removed %%{_dist}.
+
* Sat Apr 22 2006 Ville Skyttä ville.skytta at iki.fi - 1.0.1-1
- 1.0.1.
--
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 194551] New: Review Request: ifd-egate
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=194551 Summary: Review Request: ifd-egate Product: Fedora Core Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://directory.fedora.redhat.com/built/rpm_review/rrelyea/ifd-egate.spec SRPM URL: http://directory.fedora.redhat.com/built/rpm_review/rrelyea/ifd-egate-0.05-8.src.rpm Description: Axalto Egate SmartCard device driver for PCSC-lite This driver is needed for CoolKey and smart card login. This packaged depends on pcsc-lite Bug 193187 . -- 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 194551] Review Request: ifd-egate
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: ifd-egate https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194551 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||193187 -- 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 193187] Review Request: pcsc-lite ccid
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: pcsc-lite ccid https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193187 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||194551 nThis|| -- 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 194420] Review Request: mlton, an optimizing compiler for Standard ML
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: mlton, an optimizing compiler for Standard ML https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194420 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 19:37 EST --- I have a new version of the source package. It contains binary versions of MLton for ppc and i386 in order to bootstrap the system. Then the bootstrapping can be removed and replaced with BuildRequires: mlton. http://www.spicenitz.org/fedora/mlton-20051202-2.src.rpm http://www.spicenitz.org/fedora/mlton.spec For reference, see: http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-June/msg00301.html -- 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 192578] Review Request: metamonitor - A Simple program that watches log files and popup its changes
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: metamonitor - A Simple program that watches log files and popup its changes https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192578 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 20:24 EST --- Thanks for your comment. Updated package: Spec URL: http://www.devin.com.br/eitch/rpm/fedora/metamonitor.spec SRPM URL: http://www.devin.com.br/eitch/rpm/fedora/5/SRPMS/metamonitor-0.4.5-2.src.rpm Changes: - Fixed description field size - Applied patch (0) to modify a symlink to be relative -- 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 194011] Review Request: curry - MÃ ¼nster Curry compiler
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: curry - Münster Curry compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194011 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 20:46 EST --- I've been thinking about this a bit and took a look at a couple of things. Obviously the best possible solution would be for the curry compiler to dynamically link the executables it creates, and then package the runtime separately. The question is, how feasible is this? I don't think anything prevents the runtime from being made into a .so; it would just be a few lines in runtime/Makefile.in. And the curry compiler (cyc) is really just a shell script that turns the curry source into C, then calls GCC to compile it and then links it: $exec $CC $debug $ccopts $ldopts /tmp/cyc$$.c $linkfiles $libs $dbglib -lcurry @LDFLAGS@ @LIBS@ So it may be possible to actually make things work without an insane amount of effort. However, assuming that we can't achieve curry packaging Nirvana, is the current package behavior acceptable? Obviously we dislike static libraries and static linking, but if there's no other way to make it work then we either have to package the compiler as is or not package it at all. The standard argument against static linking is one of security: you have to fix every package that linked in the bad library individually. The curry compiler is mostly of research interest and isn't going to be used to produce a large number of security-sensitive programs, so it's probably reasonable to discount the security argument. What remains is Ralf's comment about splitting out the _g library. It is large and not a terrible idea, but there's the issue of cymake failing. However, cymake is just a shell script which calls cyc; it should be easy to patch the appropriate one to check for the existence of the debug library and simply bail with a useful error if it doesn't exist. So the real issue is how much work is involved to make things a bit cleaner. 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
