[Bug 185205] Review Request: nqc
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: nqc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185205 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 01:57 EST --- nqc works fine on my x86_64 system also using the nqc vim extension, not included in the release. I made a rpm for it a long time ago, which is the same version. I'm not sure why yours doesn't build I just tried mine again after verifying the version. -- 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 185205] Review Request: nqc
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: nqc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185205 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 01:59 EST --- Created an attachment (id=130881) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=130881action=view) Apparently I made a 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 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] 2006-06-10 02:24 EST --- strange-permission warnings All these come from rpmlinting the source package. I think this doesn't matter because the source file perms will change anyway when they get added to CVS and later pulled from there to create the actual SRPM (assuming the Core build system works roughly the same way as the Extras one). pcsc-lite conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/reader.conf pcsc-lite non-conffile-in-etc /etc/reader.conf.d/README Intentional, see earlier comments in this review. pcsc-lite service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/pcscd Up for debate. IMHO there's no harm in leaving it enabled by default. pcsc-lite incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/pcscd $prog rpmlint bug. pcsc-lite incoherent-init-script-name pcscd Noise which I'm planning to filter in future rpmlint revisions. pcsc-lite-devel no-dependency-on pcsc-lite rpmlint bug/limitation; this is intended (-devel has a dependency on -libs). pcsc-lite-devel no-documentation This is ok. pcsc-lite-libs no-documentation Right. Because pcsc-lite-libs can be installed without pcsc-lite, at least COPYING should be included in -libs too. -- 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 03:07 EST --- See also bug 194548 -- 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 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] 2006-06-10 03:18 EST --- I was extras IRC last night and the view was that it's mess. Some mono stuff has to be platform specific, while libs should be noarch. The problem with that though is that there are lots of exceptions to the rules. An example is f-spot. It's a mix of C and C#. For my packages, gtksourceview-sharp would be noarch, but those built on it might be. Someone did mention they should be treated the same as jar files, but again, some applications (such as azerus) are defined as being architecture specific. If you can bare the horror of looking at a SuSE spec file, you'll see that they basically just noarch everything which will, by default, place everything in /usr/lib rather than lib64. I personally am unhappy with having binaries as noarch as to me, noarch should be scripts (perl etc), pictures, audio files and text - material which doesn't care what the architecture is. I await spot on this one. -- 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 190940] Review Request: tangerine
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: tangerine https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190940 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 04:33 EST --- Hi. I would like to review this one for you :) However, I have not reviewed a mono package offically yet, so I wont assign this ticket to myself unless you are ok with it. Ok, the only issue I have found is that the devel package does not have a requires on pkgconfig, which it probably should, since it has a .pc file. Also, is Applicatons - Accessories really an ideal place for a music sharing application? The first place I looked for it was under Applications - Sound Video -- 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 194051] Review Request: abcMIDI - ABC to/from MIDI conversion 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: abcMIDI - ABC to/from MIDI conversion utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194051 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 04:45 EST --- to the buffer overflow - in file store.c on line 1225 is a buffer char *msg[40], but the string on line 1230 is 42 chars long :-) -- 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 194051] Review Request: abcMIDI - ABC to/from MIDI conversion 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: abcMIDI - ABC to/from MIDI conversion utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194051 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 04:52 EST --- Created an attachment (id=130909) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=130909action=view) simple patch for buffer overflow in store.c -- 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 194051] Review Request: abcMIDI - ABC to/from MIDI conversion 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: abcMIDI - ABC to/from MIDI conversion utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194051 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 04:56 EST --- the review is here MUST - no rpmlint output - package name OK - spec file name OK, is in English and is legible - package meets the Packaging Guidelines - license GPL and is included - source matches upstream - compiles and builds at least on i386 - no BuildRequires needed - no localized files - no shared libs - no created directories and so no conflict with existing dirs - no duplicates files, permissions are set properly, uses %defattr - has %clean section - consistent use of macros - contains code - no large docs, %doc is not required during runtime - no need for devel subpackage - not a GUI application with the fix for the buffer overflow is this package 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 194051] Review Request: abcMIDI - ABC to/from MIDI conversion 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: abcMIDI - ABC to/from MIDI conversion utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194051 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2006-06-10 05:20 EST --- mlton compiles fine in mock/i386. I think we should get someone to test it on ppc. I propose you ask on fedora-extras-list. There are lot of these annoying devel-file-in-non-devel-package warning from rpmlint which can be ignored. Other warnings: W: mlton incoherent-version-in-changelog 20051202-1 20051202-2 E: mlton zero-length /usr/lib/mlton/sml/ckit-lib/regression/output/t6.c The regression directory can probably be removed. Maybe there are other things in /usr/lib/mlton that are of no use and can be safely removed. The examples compile fine, so I assume the build was correct. In the doc there are .pdf and .ps.gz files. Maybe one should convert the .ps.gz to pdf using ps2pdf. That would be more consistent and the .pdf files are not much larger than the ps.gz files. -- 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 192432] Review Request: compiz
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: compiz https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192432 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 06:50 EST --- Just to update everyone control-center-devel has been resolved in the development branch. libsvg* has been put into the FC-5 and development branches so the dependencies are there now for the development 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 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 07:04 EST --- I havn't had much time recently to much much of anything. If someone is willing to take over then that would be the best deal -- 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 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX OtherBugsDependingO|163776, 177841 | nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 08:09 EST --- Ok, Closing this one if anyone wants to take over they can base it on your work, but they better create a new review Request otherwise things become a mess. -- 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 08:22 EST --- Created an attachment (id=130912) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=130912action=view) xorg-x11-proto-devel patch for xgl How to solve Xorg protocols problems - Ask for rewiew the proto package with the attached patch. - put de sources for the proto in srpm and build the package with these included sources (like in the suse spec). - create a new package for the Xgl specific protocols. - ??? Before making a new request, I preferred to have your opinions. -- 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 190940] Review Request: tangerine
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: tangerine https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190940 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 08:27 EST --- Spec URL: http://piedmont.homelinux.org/fedora/tangerine/tangerine.spec SRPM URL: http://piedmont.homelinux.org/fedora/tangerine/tangerine-0.2.3-3.src.rpm * Sat Jun 10 2006 Brian Pepple [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 0.2.3-3 - Add requires for pkgconfig on devel. The desktop file, I will defer to upstream on. -- 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 08:36 EST --- The development version of xorg-x11-proto-devel already has these headers. I wonder if we can get these backported to FC-5. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188359] Review Request: bugzilla - bug tracking 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: bugzilla - bug tracking tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188359 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 11:37 EST --- (In reply to comment #28) Why can't we put something in /var/www? It's where we normally put Bugzilla. The naive answer is because the packaging guidelines indicate that it's not the proper place; see the end of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines. The point is that once this is in Extras it's essentially a system component, and the system shouldn't install important pieces of itself into /var. Also note that Bugzilla requires *either* DBD::Pg or DBD::mysql, but it doesn't need both. I'm not sure how to handle that in RPM. The automatic deps will probably pick up both. RPM has no way to indicate this kind of either-or requirement; it's probably simpler to just install both unless we can somehow make two subpackages, bugzilla-postgres and bugzilla-mysql that provide bugzilla-db and pull in the necessary Perl modules for each specific database. I doubt it's worth it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2006-06-10 11:49 EST --- They're pretty much the same as my corresponding Extras packages, so yes, I'm ok with them. I'd include COPYING in pcsc-lite-libs before the first build though, and will do that in future FE packages too: http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/rpms/pcsc-lite/FC-5/pcsc-lite.spec?root=extrasr1=1.9r2=1.10 -- 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 194787] New: Review Request: manaworld - 2D mmorpg 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=194787 Summary: Review Request: manaworld - 2D mmorpg 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/manaworld.spec SRPM URL: http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/manaworld-0.0.19-1.src.rpm Description: The Mana World (TMW) is a serious effort to create an innovative free and open source MMORPG. TMW uses 2D graphics and aims to create a large and diverse interactive world. -- 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 194787] Review Request: manaworld - 2D mmorpg 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: manaworld - 2D mmorpg game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194787 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||194730 -- 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 13:45 EST --- Thanks for the feedback. I can clean up the specfile further. Maybe I am not understanding the concept of being sponsored. I assume from comments that people want sponsorship so they get access to cvs. i.e. the lastest and greatest. I could care less about that. I run RHEL on all my systems except a couple of workstations and laptops. There are a handful of apps like this one that I have built for RHEL and rebuilt them to have them on my Fedora boxes. I just wanted to contibute them to Fedora extras. I am not looking for a third or forth fulltime job with FE project. With that in mind, would it be your opinion that submitting these packages to the FE project is not the best way to contribute these packages? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 14:41 EST ---
Hmmm. You shouldn't use PreReq:; use Requires: instead. This solves the
following:
W: curry prereq-use curry = %{version}-%{release}
Other than that I'm happy with the package. An additional couple of ignorable
rpmlint warnings popped up for the -debugger package:
W: curry-debugger no-documentation
W: curry-debugger devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/curry/libcurry_g.a
but these are no big deal.
Review:
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is correct.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible. License text included in package.
* source files match upstream:
ae56a087dd6e174cc865e701657876a0 curry-0.9.10.tar.gz
ae56a087dd6e174cc865e701657876a0 curry-0.9.10.tar.gz-srpm
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
O rpmlint has some ignorable complaints.
* final provides and requires are sane:
curry-0.9.10-2.fc6.x86_64.rpm
curry = 0.9.10-2.fc6
=
/bin/sh
gcc
libgmp.so.3()(64bit)
curry-debugger-0.9.10-2.fc6.x86_64.rpm
curry-debugger = 0.9.10-2.fc6
=
curry = 0.9.10-2.fc6
* no shared libraries are present.
* package is not relocatable.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.
* no scriptlets present.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
O plenty of headers, but this is a compiler.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.
O static libraries, but this is a compiler and there's no reasonable way to
eliminate them.
* not a GUI app.
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 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] 2006-06-10 14:47 EST --- Oops, I just noticed that the debuginfo package came out empty. I don't see anything being stripped and the compiler is being called with -g so I'm not sure what's up here. Perhaps it's best to just disable the -debuginfo package generation. -- 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 15:06 EST --- (In reply to comment #3) Thanks for the feedback. I can clean up the specfile further. Maybe I am not understanding the concept of being sponsored. I assume from comments that people want sponsorship so they get access to cvs. i.e. the lastest and greatest. I could care less about that. No, everyone (iow the whole world) has read access to the CVS, were talking about write access to CVS. I just wanted to contibute them to Fedora I am not looking for a third or forth fulltime job with FE project. With that in mind, would it be your opinion that submitting these packages to the FE project is not the best way to contribute these packages? We do not have packages _submitted_ we have people becoming a contributer and _maintaining_ packages, iow respond to bugreports, fix (packaging) bugs, bring out new version when upstream comes with a new version, etc. This is no where nere another fulltime job if all you maintain is a handfull of packges. If you're not willing to commit yourself to truely maintaining any packages you submit, then this is indeed not the best way to contribute these packages. In this not committing scenario the best you can do is post a description of your packages and link to them to the fedora-extras mailinglist with a note that maybe someone who is already a contributer can pick them up. When you do this also please close the Review Request with a resolution of 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 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] 2006-06-10 15:14 EST ---
(In reply to comment #8)
Hmmm. You shouldn't use PreReq:; use Requires: instead. This solves the
following:
W: curry prereq-use curry = %{version}-%{release}
Ah yes, I tried this to so that uninstalling curry and curry-debugger
first uninstalls curry-debugger, so that the /usr/lib/curry directory
is not left behind. This didn't work out and I simply made curry-debugger
also own /usr/lib/curry.
However after giving some thought to the package splitting, I would
rather not split it after all. Remember, this is a development system
with an integrated debugger. A compiled binary doesn't need any runtime
library anymore, therefore the curry package isn't needed anymore either.
I will however accept if your insist on it.
APPROVED
(In reply to comment #9)
Oops, I just noticed that the debuginfo package came out empty. I don't see
anything being stripped and the compiler is being called with -g so I'm not
sure
what's up here. Perhaps it's best to just disable the -debuginfo package
generation.
I will try to find what's happening.
How is it disabled?
--
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] 2006-06-10 15:16 EST --- Re: useless debuginfo: from the install-dir target in Makefile.in: $(INSTALL_PROGRAM) -s cycc $(DESTDIR)$(libdir)/curry $(INSTALL_PROGRAM) -s cymk $(DESTDIR)$(libdir)/curry $(INSTALL_PROGRAM) -s newer $(DESTDIR)$(libdir)/curry Those -s's look suspicious. -- 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] 2006-06-10 15:28 EST --- Sorry, But the tolua++ patch still has issues. The changes to cegui_mk2/ScriptingModules/CEGUILua/LuaScriptModule/src/Makefile.in and cegui_mk2/ScriptingModules/CEGUILua/LuaScriptModule/src/Makefile.am are not in sync In .in you add -llua -ltolua++ to the final link command in the .am you add them to the LIBS variable and worse, the link command still contains -rpath, appearantly -rpath not only comes from the configure script but is also hardcoded into some of the makefiles. Further discussing SMC by mail (your right it really doesn't belong in this BZ ticket even though it did help finding and fixing the tinyxml and 64bit bugs). -- 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] 2006-06-10 15:30 EST --- (In reply to comment #11) Re: useless debuginfo: from the install-dir target in Makefile.in: $(INSTALL_PROGRAM) -s cycc $(DESTDIR)$(libdir)/curry $(INSTALL_PROGRAM) -s cymk $(DESTDIR)$(libdir)/curry $(INSTALL_PROGRAM) -s newer $(DESTDIR)$(libdir)/curry Those -s's look suspicious. Yep, I am patching them away. -- 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] 2006-06-10 15:36 EST --- (In reply to comment #10) Ah yes, I tried this to so that uninstalling curry and curry-debugger first uninstalls curry-debugger, so that the /usr/lib/curry directory is not left behind. This didn't work out and I simply made curry-debugger also own /usr/lib/curry. This is an rpm bug; there's a ticket open on it somewhere but there are so many rpm bugz that I can't find it right now. However after giving some thought to the package splitting, I would rather not split it after all. I don't really think it is necessary; it was just one of the ideas I tossed out. It's not the static+debug situation that Ralf mentioned earlier, it's just a library with additional stuff linked in. Remember, this is a development system with an integrated debugger. A compiled binary doesn't need any runtime library anymore, therefore the curry package isn't needed anymore either. I will however accept if your insist on it. APPROVED (In reply to comment #9) Oops, I just noticed that the debuginfo package came out empty. I don't see anything being stripped and the compiler is being called with -g so I'm not sure what's up here. Perhaps it's best to just disable the -debuginfo package generation. I will try to find what's happening. How is it disabled? -- 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] 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. Summary: Review Request: q - Equational programming language https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194519 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 15:49 EST --- This is really a packaging of RC2, correct? I think it would be good to indicate that in the version. According to the naming guidelines, you should use q-7.1-0.1.rc2. and increment the second 1 for each RPM release until 7.1 is released, at which you can call it q-7.1-1. Unfortunately I'm having trouble building in mock: gcc -DYEAR=\2006\ -DSYSINFO=\x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu\ -DQPATH=\.:/usr/share/q/lib:/usr/lib64/q\ -DQEXEC=\/usr/bin/q\ -DLIBTOOL=\/usr/lib64/q/libtool\ -DCC=\gcc\ -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buf fer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic -o qcc qcc-qcc.o qcc-qbase.o qcc-sys.o qcc-getopt.o qcc-getopt1.o -lgmp -lcrypt -lutil -lnsl -lm PATH=.:/usr/kerberos/sbin:/usr/kerberos/bin:/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/sbin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin QPATH=../stdlib:../modules/clib:../modules/clib ./q ./qcwrap.q ./qcwrap.q def: error loading module Warning: 268 unresolved external symbols ! File def, line 297: Value mismatch in definition make[2]: *** [qcwrap.c] Error 2 Finally, with so many modules packaged, this package is probably giong to have a monster dependency list. Is it possible to split the packaging a bit? Or are you not building all of the modules listed in the %descsription? -- 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 192876] Review Request: V2Strip ID3v2(Mp3 Files) tags remover
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: V2Strip ID3v2(Mp3 Files) tags remover https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192876 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 16:49 EST --- Just a reminder that this report should probably be closed, package is in CVS, owners.list and in the FE repos. -- 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 191671] Review Request: serpentine
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: serpentine https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191671 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 16:51 EST --- Just a reminder that this report should probably be closed, package is in CVS, owners.list and in the FE repos. -- 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 177512] Review Request: mysql-connector-net
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mysql-connector-net https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177512 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 16:54 EST --- srpm now uploaded. Sorry about that. -- 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] 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. Summary: Review Request: q - Equational programming language https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194519 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 17:00 EST --- (In reply to comment #1) This is really a packaging of RC2, correct? I think it would be good to indicate that in the version. According to the naming guidelines, you should use q-7.1-0.1.rc2. and increment the second 1 for each RPM release until 7.1 is released, at which you can call it q-7.1-1. Ok. Unfortunately I'm having trouble building in mock: gcc -DYEAR=\2006\ -DSYSINFO=\x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu\ -DQPATH=\.:/usr/share/q/lib:/usr/lib64/q\ -DQEXEC=\/usr/bin/q\ -DLIBTOOL=\/usr/lib64/q/libtool\ -DCC=\gcc\ -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buf fer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic -o qcc qcc-qcc.o qcc-qbase.o qcc-sys.o qcc-getopt.o qcc-getopt1.o -lgmp -lcrypt -lutil -lnsl -lm PATH=.:/usr/kerberos/sbin:/usr/kerberos/bin:/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/sbin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin QPATH=../stdlib:../modules/clib:../modules/clib ./q ./qcwrap.q ./qcwrap.q def: error loading module Warning: 268 unresolved external symbols ! File def, line 297: Value mismatch in definition make[2]: *** [qcwrap.c] Error 2 Maybe this is due to the bundled libtool. Is there policy how to replace this with the fedora libtool during building? Finally, with so many modules packaged, this package is probably giong to have a monster dependency list. Is it possible to split the packaging a bit? Or are you not building all of the modules listed in the %descsription? Not all modules are built, e.g., dx and ggi are not built. The description needs to be modified to only included the bundled ones. I am reluctant to make separate packages. Users normally expect the advertised functionality and do not want to search for optional packages. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177080] Review Request: metisse
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: metisse https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177080 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 | nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 17:13 EST --- Removed block on FE-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 190845] Review Request: sblim
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sblim https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190845 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 | nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 17:17 EST --- Removed block on FE-REVIEW -- 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 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] 2006-06-10 17:18 EST --- I think it's fine as is; at least now you can install the -debuginfo package and get symbols if the compiler coredumps. (You might argue that nobody would bother, but then we'd just turn off debuginfo generation on most other packages as well.) I think it's fine for you to go ahead and import at this point. -- 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] 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. Summary: Review Request: q - Equational programming language https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194519 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 17:22 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) Maybe this is due to the bundled libtool. Is there policy how to replace this with the fedora libtool during building? I've used make LIBTOOL=/usr/bin/libtool. Be sure to add a BR: libtool. I am reluctant to make separate packages. Users normally expect the advertised functionality and do not want to search for optional packages. The problem is that normally users don't expect the installation a little language compiler to pull in a web server. (Note that since I don't have a built version, I'm only guessing that the apache module would pull in apache; I can't really comment fairly until I see the final dependency 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 154392] HelixPlayer should be removed
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: HelixPlayer should be removed https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=154392 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 17:25 EST --- Hi, I agree that HelixPlayer should be removed from Core ( I will even offer to take it on for FE ), however, I disagree with this should be blocking FE-NEW and that the component is Package Review I am requesting that it not block FE-NEW and that the component be change to HelixPlayer -- 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 194519] 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. Summary: Review Request: q - Equational programming language https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194519 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 17:42 EST --- This happens on x86_64, right? On i386 there is not such problem. In the install I remove the .la files of the modules. This works with i386, but I have read several times that on x86_64 these are necessary from dynamic loading... -- 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] 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. Summary: Review Request: q - Equational programming language https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194519 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 17:46 EST --- (In reply to comment #4) By the way, just defining LIBTOOL on the make line doesn't work; it redefines it. Could you try building manually on x86_64, but before running configure, do 'libtoolize -c --ltdl --force'. If the compilation then works, then I think this should be included in the .spec file. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194519] 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. Summary: Review Request: q - Equational programming language https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194519 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 18:39 EST --- Unfortunately this doesn't help; the build still fails with the same error. I do note that the configure script summary output includes Libltdl: uninstalled; I'm not sure if that is useful. I can attach build.log if you like. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188359] Review Request: bugzilla - bug tracking 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: bugzilla - bug tracking tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188359 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 19:00 EST --- (In reply to comment #29) RPM has no way to indicate this kind of either-or requirement; it's probably simpler to just install both unless we can somehow make two subpackages, bugzilla-postgres and bugzilla-mysql that provide bugzilla-db and pull in the necessary Perl modules for each specific database. I doubt it's worth it. Okay. The problem is that those perl modules also pull in the databases themselves. So installing Bugzilla will now always install both postgresql and mysql. -- 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 188359] Review Request: bugzilla - bug tracking 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: bugzilla - bug tracking tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188359 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 19:18 EST --- Surely it only pulls in the client libraries? I can see no evidence that it will actually pull in the database servers; that would be nuts. Admittedly the mysql client libraries are a bit large (5MB) but that could be seen as a packaging bug since it contains the client command line interface as well. (perl-DBD-MySQL just wants libmysqlclient.) The Postgres client libs are only 500K. In any case, I'm not sure it would be acceptable to filter the perl-DBD dependencies and require that the end user know that they need to install one or the other. I guess it depends on whether or not then can be warned at setup time; if that's possible then it would be reasonable to do so. This isn't exactly and install-and-go package so I think it's acceptable to have them go back and pull in another package. -- 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 188359] Review Request: bugzilla - bug tracking 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: bugzilla - bug tracking tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188359 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 19:22 EST --- (In reply to comment #31) This isn't exactly and install-and-go package so I think it's acceptable to have them go back and pull in another package. If they only pull in the client libraries, it's okay to have both of the perl modules be installed. It's true that running ./checksetup.pl will tell the user that they need to install the correct module, but it will give them CPAN instructions, and I think we'd prefer that they use RPMs. -- 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] 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. Summary: Review Request: q - Equational programming language https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194519 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 19:46 EST --- Here are some posts from the mailing list: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=16299225 http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=16299878 http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=12407077 http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=10938506 So there seems to some incompatibility with x86_64. -- 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 191017] Review Request: eclipse-subclipse
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: eclipse-subclipse https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191017 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 19:55 EST --- Ok, I just built and installed eclipse-subclipse, javasvn, ganymed and I think they're ready for Extras - everything is working and the rpms look good. Anthony, what's the next step to get these into Extras? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 174866] Review Request: polypaudio: Improved Linux sound 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: polypaudio: Improved Linux sound server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=174866 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 20:34 EST --- I'm fine either way. The packages I've been putting up are based on spot's anyway. I have a new RPM ready for 0.9.1 as well as for some Polypaudio utils. I've been holding off on them until I saw some activity here. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188359] Review Request: bugzilla - bug tracking 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: bugzilla - bug tracking tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188359 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 20:44 EST --- We shouldn't fear patching things like checksetup to give the appropriate instructions, but in this case I think just requiring both is going to be our best bet. So what's left? We need to pick a location for the data directory; /srv/bugzilla makes the most sense to me. I need to get with the selinux gurus to see what's required there. -- 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 191017] Review Request: eclipse-subclipse
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: eclipse-subclipse https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191017 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 20:55 EST --- It looks like Robert is already sponsored so all that's required is a package review. Unfortunately I know zilch about Java packaging standards so I've been avoiding these. If nobody steps up and I can work through my queue of current reviews I'll try to take a look. -- 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] 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. Summary: Review Request: q - Equational programming language https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194519 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 22:27 EST --- I read up a bit and it does look like this is hopeless on any 64-bit arch. So I suggest just doing an ExcludeArch and opening the usual tracking bug. Maybe some 64-bit experts would be able to lend a hand. In the meantime I've build on i386 development. rpmlint has a few things to complain about: W: q symlink-should-be-relative /usr/bin/gqbuilder /usr/share/q/gqbuilder/gqbuilder.q Should be easy to fix up. E: q info-dir-file /usr/share/info/dir Don't package this file. W: q-devel no-documentation Ignorable. Having a build, I can look at the dependency list. It looks like this will pull in all of TCL and Tk, plus Imagemagick and unixODBC. That's pretty heavy, but not insane as if it pulled in octave or a web server. By the way, it doesn't look like you build the Apache module. I doubt it's worth it to do so, honestly, but you probably want to take that out of the description. -- 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 188359] Review Request: bugzilla - bug tracking 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: bugzilla - bug tracking tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188359 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 23:34 EST --- I would think that /var/bugzilla would make more sense, since that seems to fit the purpose of /var, yes? -- 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 188359] Review Request: bugzilla - bug tracking 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: bugzilla - bug tracking tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188359 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 23:48 EST --- Well, that's a reasonable question. To address /var/bugzilla specifically, FHS forbids it: Applications must generally not add directories to the top level of /var. Such directories should only be added if they have some system-wide implication, and in consultation with the FHS mailing list. If it had to be in /var, /var/lib/bugzilla would be better. Here's what FHS has to say about /var and /srv: /var contains variable data files. This includes spool directories and files, administrative and logging data, and transient and temporary files. /srv contains site-specific data which is served by this system. Seems to me like /srv is more appropriate. And in any case I'm just following gallery2's lead, which was packaged by the same person (John Berninger). I assume he'll chime in with why he chose that location and what he'd like to do about this package. -- 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 188359] Review Request: bugzilla - bug tracking 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: bugzilla - bug tracking tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188359 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-11 00:01 EST --- Okay. Very little of the data in data/ is technically served to the user--just certain graphics generated by graphviz. So /var/lib/bugzilla makes sense to me, but it's up to you guys in the end. -- 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 188359] Review Request: bugzilla - bug tracking 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: bugzilla - bug tracking tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188359 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-11 00:18 EST --- Ah, I had the impression that it held data such as uploaded attachments. If it's just transient data, why doesn't it just put it in /tmp? -- 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 174021] Review Request: aplus-fsf - Advanced APL Interpreter
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: aplus-fsf - Advanced APL Interpreter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=174021 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-11 00:19 EST --- This review assumes you switch the dist tag around as necessary to build. I find it rather odd that the upstream tarfile is ends in .tar.gz but isn't actually compressed. I'm surprised rpmbuild handled that, but it did. You include the COPYING file as %doc, but it just refers to the LICENSE file which you don't package. I suggest packaging LICENSE and dropping COPYING. There's not really any reason to include a copy of COPYING (or LICENSE) in every subpackage although it doesn't hurt. If you want to do so, include LICENSE instead of COPYING as above. Your %post script for the truetype fonts calls ttmkfdir, but you only require it for postun. It seems to me that the fonts-truetype-apl subpackage should have the same list of requirements for both post and postun, since it calls the same programs. You drop a file into /usr/share/X11/app-defaults without owning that directory, yet none of your dependencies will create it for you. (In fact, currently the libX11.so dependency will pull in nx if the libX11 package isn't already installed, although that's not a problem this package should try to solve.) I think it's best to own that directory. By the way, just what is that app-default file for? I understand it specifies and alternate set of key mappings for xterm, but how would it get used? Review: * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. X license is open source-compatible; text of license included upstream but not packaged. * source files match upstream: 2366264664c0b352b907b411af48e5aa aplus-fsf-4.20-2.tar.gz 2366264664c0b352b907b411af48e5aa aplus-fsf-4.20-2.tar.gz-srpm * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: aplus-fsf-4.20.2-2.fc6.x86_64.rpm libAplusGUI-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libIPC-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libMSGUI-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libMSIPC-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libMSTypes-4.20.2.so()(64bit) liba-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libadap-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libcxb-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libcxc-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libcxs-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libcxsys-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libesf-4.20.2.so()(64bit) aplus-fsf = 4.20.2-2.fc6 = /sbin/ldconfig fonts-apl libAplusGUI-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libIPC-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libMSGUI-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libMSIPC-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libMSTypes-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libX11.so.6()(64bit) liba-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libadap-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libcxb-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libcxc-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libcxs-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libcxsys-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libesf-4.20.2.so()(64bit) aplus-fsf-devel-4.20.2-2.fc6.x86_64.rpm aplus-fsf-devel = 4.20.2-2.fc6 = aplus-fsf = 4.20.2 libAplusGUI-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libIPC-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libMSGUI-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libMSIPC-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libMSTypes-4.20.2.so()(64bit) liba-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libadap-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libcxb-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libcxc-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libcxs-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libcxsys-4.20.2.so()(64bit) libesf-4.20.2.so()(64bit) aplus-fsf-el-4.20.2-2.fc6.x86_64.rpm aplus-fsf-el = 4.20.2-2.fc6 = aplus-fsf xemacs fonts-truetype-apl-4.20.2-2.fc6.x86_64.rpm fonts-apl fonts-truetype-apl = 4.20.2-2.fc6 = /bin/sh /usr/bin/mkfontdir chkfontpath fontconfig ttmkfdir fonts-x11-apl-4.20.2-2.fc6.x86_64.rpm fonts-apl fonts-x11-apl = 4.20.2-2.fc6 = /bin/sh /usr/bin/mkfontdir chkfontpath fontconfig * shared libraries are present; ldconfig is called properly. * package is not relocatable. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * %clean is present. * %check is not present; no test suite upstream (that I could find). ? many scriptlets present; I'm not sure about the dependencies. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * headers present, in -devel package. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. * not a GUI app. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list
[Bug 188359] Review Request: bugzilla - bug tracking 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: bugzilla - bug tracking tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188359 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-11 00:29 EST --- It's definitely not transient data. Bugzilla's per-server operating parameters are stored there, but they're written by a CGI. It also stores pre-compiled templates. It does store a few attachments, but most attachments are stored in the database (depending on user settings). Basically, it stores any file that the web server needs to write to or anything that Bugzilla generates dynamically. -- 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 188359] Review Request: bugzilla - bug tracking 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: bugzilla - bug tracking tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188359 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-11 00:34 EST --- If I may suggest, please don't stuff bugzilla in /srv: very few programs actually use it or /opt these days, and /var is an old and well-recognized place for data that gets a lot of disk access, and where the files experience churn and thus need frequent backup. /var/lib/bugzilla makes a certain amount of sense if /var/bugzilla is not easily negotiated for. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191014] Review Request: ganymed
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ganymed https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191014 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-11 00:52 EST --- Some observations: There is absolutely no prohibition against using macros in your Source URLs; you can use it if you like. Folks who want to fetch the upstream source given your specfile should use spectool -g. The package builds fine in mock (x86_64, development). rpmlint has a few complaints. There are several description-line-too-long warnings; you should reflow your %description to keep things down under 80 characters. W: ganymed incoherent-version-in-changelog 209.2 209-2.fc6 Standard format is to separate version from release by a hyphen. W: ganymed no-documentation The source zip (zipball?) seems to have plenty of documentation. Is there some reason it's not packaged? The -debuginfo package generation seems to be confused; the build log is filled with this: extracting debug info from /var/tmp/ganymed-209-2.fc6-root-mockbuild/usr/lib64/gcj/ganymed/ganymed-209.jar.so cpio: ganymed-ssh2-build209/ch/ethz/ssh2/Connection$1$TimeoutState.java: No such file or directory cpio: ganymed-ssh2-build209/ch/ethz/ssh2/Connection$1.java: No such file or directory cpio: ganymed-ssh2-build209/ch/ethz/ssh2/Connection.java: No such file or directory repeated once for each file in the src directory of the source zipball. All that ends up in the -debuginfo package are the symbols from the single .so. I'm not really sure what's supposed to happen here. It seems like it's looking in the wrong place; either that or something has deleted those files from the buildroot before find-debuginfo.sh is run. Other than those, I'd be happy approving this package. I just want to make sure I'm on the right track and that I have enough basic understanding of how Java packaging is supposed to work first. -- 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
