[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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-11 01:56 EST ---
I was able to fix the debuginfo generation by adding the following to the end of
the %build section:
# Move source files to fix -debuginfo generation.
mv src/* .
It seems the file locations stored in the debug information didn't match the
actual locations of the files, so I just moved them so that they'd be found.
There are still some errors lile:
cpio: ganymed-ssh2-build209/ch/ethz/ssh2/Connection$1$TimeoutState.java: No such
file or directory
Each of the errors mentions a file with a dollar sign; no such files exist in
the source.
One other thing to note: the page http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/NativeJava,
which I'm taking as the packaging guidelines here, mentions that the %post and
%postun scripts should look like:
if [ -x %{_bindir}/rebuild-gcj-db ]
then
%{_bindir}/rebuild-gcj-db
fi
I don't really see the difference if the package that provides rebuild-gcj-db is
explicitly kept in with Require(post) and Require(postun), and the way this
package does things is simpler and matches what the core eclipse packages do.
So really the only issues I see are the documentation and the changelog revision
format.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-11 02:06 EST --- MUST: = * rpmlint output is: E: php-magickwand binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/php/modules/magickwand.so ['/usr/lib64'] W: php-magickwand non-conffile-in-etc /etc/php.d/magickwand.ini W: php-magickwand wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/php-magickwand-0.1.8/README All 3 these messages must be fixed. * Package and spec file named appropriately * Packaged according to packaging guidelines * License ok, license file included * spec file is legible and in Am. English. * Source matches upstream * Compiles and builds on devel-x86_64 * BR: ok * No locales * No shared libraries (its a plugin) * Not relocatable * Package owns / or requires all dirs * No duplicate files Permissions ok * %clean macro usage OK * Contains code only * %doc does not affect runtime, and isn't large enough to warrent a sub package * no -devel package needed, no libs / .la files. * no gui - no .desktop file required MUST fix: = * all 3 rpmlint complaints let me know if you need help with any of them -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 02:10 EST --- (In reply to comment #7) [...] end of the %build section: # Move source files to fix -debuginfo generation. mv src/* . That sounds like something that is very likely to break --short-circuit builds. cp -pR would sound better than mv (but that's not a real fix either). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194810] New: Review Request: Openbox
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=194810 Summary: Review Request: Openbox 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 I intend to unorphan and maintain Openbox in Fedora Extras. Spec URL: http://thecodergeek.com/downloads/fedora/openbox.spec SRPM URL: http://thecodergeek.com/downloads/fedora/openbox-3.3-0.rc2.1.src.rpm Description: Openbox is a window manager for X11 designed to be standards-compliant while staying fast and highly configurable. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194811] New: Review Request: main package name here
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=194811 Summary: Review Request: main package name here 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://thecodergeek.com/downloads/fedora/obconf.spec SRPM URL: http://thecodergeek.com/downloads/fedora/obconf-1.6-1.src.rpm Description: ObConf is a graphical tool to configure various aspects of the Openbox window manager. (This builds using openbox-devel, which is a subpackage of openbox in bug #194810.) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 02:38 EST --- Good point. Unfortunately I really have no idea what's really going on here; I guess find-debuginfo.sh is extracting the full set of debug symbols from the single .so file and trying to copy any referenced files into the -debuginfo package. But it's assuming some link between those filenames and the actual pathnames in the build directory that it probably shoudn't be. It doesn't break for all packages, but it seems like it should break on any package that puts the source tree in a subdirectory. This seems on point: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=153247 The fix there is nastier, and exists but is commented out in the current Eclipse -devel spec. In any case, this seems simpler, doesn't copy the whole source tree and shouldn't break short-circuit builds: # Link source files to fix -debuginfo generation. rm -f ch ln -s src/ch -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194811] Review Request: obconf
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: obconf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194811 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: main |Review Request: obconf |package name here | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194810] Review Request: Openbox
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Openbox https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194810 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||194811 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 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] 2006-06-11 06:27 EST --- (In reply to comment #9) 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. Ok. W: q symlink-should-be-relative /usr/bin/gqbuilder /usr/share/q/gqbuilder/gqbuilder.q In fact this script depends on gnocl (GTK/Gnome bindings for Tcl), which I intend to submit some time. Probably best to remove this for now. E: q info-dir-file /usr/share/info/dir Don't package this file. How is it that this file is sometimes created, sometimes not? 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. The octave module is built, however it isn't linked agains liboctave, so there is no dependency. However using the module requires octave to be present. Should we leave it as is, or create a separate package with the module, that depends on octave? Also, I try to build the apache module as a separate package, with the name q-httpd. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 185325] Review Request: sparse
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sparse https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185325 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-11 07:34 EST --- Are you still interested in this? Ifso it would be nice if you could provide a complete SRPM as requested in Comment #9 . 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 181445] Review Request: php-shout
Please 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-shout https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181445 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-11 07:36 EST --- Brandon, Matthias currently is a bit swamped, so let me know if your still interested and then I'll 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 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] 2006-06-11 07:45 EST --- Ah I see, so it seems (from the large amount of Review Requests) that you're seriously interested in becoming an FE contributer. 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 that we work together to get 3 of your packages approved and once 3 have passed review I'll sponsor you. Does this sound like a plan? Notice that I've already started by reviewing php-magickwand. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-06-11 09:20 EST --- So here comes the next now with contains in the debug file:) http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/qsmartcard/qsa.spec?download http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/qsmartcard/qsa-1.2.1-10FC5.src.rpm?download -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190343] Review Request: VDR - Video Disk Recorder
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: VDR - Video Disk Recorder https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190343 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-11 09:36 EST --- http://cachalot.mine.nu/5/SRPMS/vdr-1.4.1-1.src.rpm * Mon Jun 12 2006 Ville Skyttä ville.skytta at iki.fi - 1.4.1-1 - 1.4.1, liemikuutio 1.6. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194202] Review Request: scim-bridge (gtkimm module in C)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: scim-bridge (gtkimm module in C) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194202 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE -- 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 194594] Review Request: wireshark
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: wireshark https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194594 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]) ||2006 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-11 10:41 EST --- Just a reminder, Devel freeze for FC6Test1 is this Wed. This package will have to be ready by then for inclusion into Test1. -- 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 AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|188265 |188268 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-11 10:46 EST --- Accepting the package. Bill already approved for Core. What changes would we need to make in Anaconda or Comps to support these packages? -- 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 193820] Review Request: libcm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libcm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193820 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|188265 |188267 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-11 10:47 EST --- I take it this is necessary to build metacity (and thus needs to be in Core?) -- 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 AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|188265 |188267 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-11 10:49 EST --- Ville, would you be willing to continue the 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 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] 2006-06-11 11:06 EST --- Would you mind if I used your spec to prepare a qsa package for qt3/fc5? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192460] Review Request: pygobject2-2.10.1
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: pygobject2-2.10.1 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192460 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|188265 | 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 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 OtherBugsDependingO|188265 | 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 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 Status|NEW |NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||i)2006 -- 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 192912] Review Request: paps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: paps https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192912 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|NEEDINFO_REPORTER -- 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 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] 2006-06-11 11:19 EST --- You can use it, but it will need mutch changes. Because for Qt3 you must use an other version on QSA. And the you shut call your package qsa3 so that there will be no conflicts. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193820] Review Request: libcm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libcm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193820 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO_REPORTER --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-11 11:29 EST --- NEEDSWORK - Why no URL? No way to verify upstream sources - No changelog Rpmlint Errors: E: libcm no-description-tag E: libcm no-changelogname-tag W: libcm no-url-tag W: libcm devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/cm.pc E: libcm-debuginfo no-changelogname-tag W: libcm-debuginfo no-url-tag E: libcm-devel no-changelogname-tag W: libcm-devel no-url-tag -- 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-11 11:30 EST --- Created an attachment (id=130930) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=130930action=view) Suggested Makefile patch I don't have hardware to test this with, but here's some observations: - Cosmetic: placement of %post is somewhat unusual, it's usually after %clean - pcscd not restarted on final removal - $RPM_OPT_FLAGS not honored - The makefile hunk of the timing patch (which seems misplaced in this patch) defines USB_DRIVER_DIR which is unused. - USB_CFLAGS, USB_LDFLAGS, PCSC_LDFLAGS undefined - Unowned install directories - License is a bit unclear, both LGPL and BSD are included - This should be installed with the base OS sounds odd in the %description Attached is a suggested replacement for the Makefile hunk in the timing patch. -- 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-11 11:34 EST --- Created an attachment (id=130931) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=130931action=view) Suggested corresponding specfile patch -- 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 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] 2006-06-11 11:37 EST --- Thaks, I'll try to roll up a 1.1.4 package in the next few days. As for the naming convention, it seems stat if qt 4.1.x will make its way into fc5, it will be called qt4, while qt 3.3.x will be called just qt. So why not to rename your package to qsa4 (or qsa-qt4), while mine will be called just qsa (or qsa-qt3)? Wouldn't it be more consistent? I don't mean to be intrusive. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-06-11 12:04 EST --- No because it is good enugh when your package wil be called qsa3. The additional qt is not needed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-11 12:44 EST --- Built on FC4, FC5 and FC6. Added entry to owners.list file. Thanks for the review! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-11 13:09 EST --- Built on FC4, FC5 and FC6. Added entry in owners.list file. Thanks again for the review! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2006-06-11 13:56 EST --- I forgot about the need for 2 qsa's. The packaging guidelines are relatively clear on this, that addons to a package foo should be named (something like) foo-addon. In our case(s), I'd suggest naming *this* one qt4-qsa, and the other (qt3) one qt-qsa so it is immediately clear looking at the name which qt is assiciated with which qsa pkg. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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: qt4-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: qt4-qsa: Qt Script for Applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191589 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: qsa: Qt |Review Request: qt4-qsa: Qt |Script for Applications |Script for Applications --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-11 14:10 EST --- The maning is only a little problem:) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2006-06-11 14:18 EST --- The Makefile.in now has: libCEGUILuaScriptModule_la_LIBADD = -llua -ltolua++ rather than adding them directly on the link line. Makefile.am is now using: libCEGUILuaScriptModule_la_LIBADD = -llua -ltolua++ instead of the LIBS variable. I have a problem, if remove -rpath $(libdir) from the Makefiles, it fails on installation with: /usr/bin/install -c .libs/libCEGUILuaScriptModule.lai /usr/local/lib/libCEGUILuaScriptModule.la /usr/bin/install: cannot stat `.libs/libCEGUILuaScriptModule.lai': No such file or directory If -rpath $(libdir) is present, it installs OK. I'm not sure what to do about 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 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] 2006-06-11 14:24 EST --- One step ahead of me. It is now built cleanly. I'm going to wait and make sure everything looks good in devel before I build it for FC-X. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 14:31 EST --- (In reply to comment #9) # Link source files to fix -debuginfo generation. rm -f ch ln -s src/ch Yeah that should work. find-debuginfo.sh seems to be broken for java packages right now. It's on my list of things to investigate for FC6 but if someone wants to help out here that would be great. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-11 15:19 EST --- Pierre: Go ahead and open a new review request for 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 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] 2006-06-11 15:22 EST --- Ok, solved, my bad: The output of libtool --help --mode=link contains: -rpath LIBDIR the created library will eventually be installed in LIBDIR So this is a different rpath option as -Wl,rpath passed to gcc / g++ or -rpath passed to ld. I guess it might cause a -Wl,rpath in the link command when LIBDIR is a non standard dir and hence it has the name, but appeareantly libtool is smart enough not to pass -rpath when LIBDIR (as passed to libtool) is a standard libdir (which it is in our case: /usr/lib[64]). I've verified this with my local installed build of -5 (+tinyxml + 64 bit fixes): [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ objdump -x /usr/lib64/libCEGUILuaScriptModule.so | grep -i rpath [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ So the -rpath in this case can stay, soryyy. Still this dance wasn't in (entirely) vain as the other -rpath's where really a problem. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 [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 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] 2006-06-11 16:08 EST --- No problem Hans, it's been a good learning process and I've a learnt a lot :-) Here's the latest http://dribble.org.uk/cegui.spec http://dribble.org.uk/cegui-0.4.1-8.src.rpm PS. I have submitted the appropriate patches for this and the others upstream. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2006-06-11 16:08 EST ---
(In reply to comment #9)
Updated:
Spec URL: http://beta.glwb.info/knetstats/knetstats.spec
SRPM URL: http://beta.glwb.info/knetstats/knetstats-1.5-4.src.rpm
I have made the necessary modifications and read the guidelines as well :)
Now I need to put that into action :)
Okay,
Some (semi) initial remarks:
-You BuildRequire qt-devel and you also BuildRequire kdelibs-devel, however
kdelibs-devel Requires qt-devel itself, so the BR qt-devel is redundant remove
please.
-update-desktop-database is deprecated, remove please as well as the belongen
Requires(%post[un])
-as already mentioned in comment #8 you must properly update the icon cache in
%post[un] see the wiki scriptlets page
-don't call /sbin/ldconfig in %post[un] this package does not seem to contain
any libs
-instead of:
###
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/applnk/Internet/%{name}.desktop
desktop-file-install --vendor fedora \
--add-category Network \
--dir $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/applnk/Internet/ \
%{name}.desktop
###
use:
###
desktop-file-install --vendor fedora \
--add-category X-Fedora \
--add-category Network \
--delete-original \
--dir $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/applications/ \
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/applnk/Internet/%{name}.desktop
###
Notice that the changed --dir, desktop files should be installed in
%{_datadir}/applications/ nowadays. Also notice the --delete-original
replacing the seperate rm command and last notice the additional
--add-category X-Fedora param which all fedora packages should use.
Also don't forget to update %files for the changed dir.
Nevertheless, I was unable to fix the
mkdir -p /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/knetstats cd
/usr/share/doc/HTML/en/knetstats
rm -f common ln -s ../common commonln: creating symbolic link `common'
to
`../common': Permission denied
change the build so that it doesnot try to install files outside of the
buildroot ?
How can I
Okay, this is because of a dirty hack in upstreams sources, there are 2 possible
fixes:
1) ignore the error (scons already does this) and add the following at the end
of %install:
ln -s ../common $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/doc/HTML/en/knetstats/common
2) patch admin/kde.py to properly honor DESTDIR.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-11 16:12 EST --- I can't reproduce the binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath on my ix86 system, looks like it is x86_64 related. Is adding --disable-rpath to %configure enough or will I have to something like this - used in php-extras, IIRC: # Cause libtool to avoid passing -rpath when linking # (this hack is well-known as libtool rpath workaround) sed -i 's|^hardcode_libdir_flag_spec|hardcode_libdir_flag_spec= - D__LIBTOOL_IS_A_FOOL__ |' libtool And AFAIK, only php-extras is using this hack of the php packages in 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 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-11 16:24 EST --- (In reply to comment #25) No problem Hans, it's been a good learning process and I've a learnt a lot :-) Here's the latest http://dribble.org.uk/cegui.spec http://dribble.org.uk/cegui-0.4.1-8.src.rpm Looks good, approved! PS. I have submitted the appropriate patches for this and the others upstream. Good! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194830] New: Review Request: CastPodder
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=194830 Summary: Review Request: CastPodder 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.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/CastPodder.spec SRPM URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/CastPodder-5.0-1.src.rpm Description: Cast podder is a media agregator (it's primary use is as a pod caster). It is written in Python and uses wxPython. I can see problems with the spec file, but would appreciate some advice on where some of the parts should go as currently things go to /opt -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-11 16:40 EST --- Neither trick works :| I'll look into this for you, but it might take a day or 2 before I find the time for 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 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] 2006-06-11 16:55 EST ---
Hello Hans,
thanks for your remarks,
Some (semi) initial remarks:
-You BuildRequire qt-devel and you also BuildRequire kdelibs-devel, however
kdelibs-devel Requires qt-devel itself, so the BR qt-devel is redundant
remove
Removed.
please.
-update-desktop-database is deprecated, remove please as well as the belongen
Requires(%post[un])
-as already mentioned in comment #8 you must properly update the icon cache in
%post[un] see the wiki scriptlets page
-don't call /sbin/ldconfig in %post[un] this package does not seem to contain
any libs
Updated to
%post
touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || :
%postun
touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || :
-instead of:
###
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/applnk/Internet/%{name}.desktop
desktop-file-install --vendor fedora \
--add-category Network \
--dir $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/applnk/Internet/ \
%{name}.desktop
###
use:
###
desktop-file-install --vendor fedora \
--add-category X-Fedora \
--add-category Network \
--delete-original \
--dir $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/applications/ \
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/applnk/Internet/%{name}.desktop
###
Notice that the changed --dir, desktop files should be installed in
%{_datadir}/applications/ nowadays. Also notice the --delete-original
replacing the seperate rm command and last notice the additional
--add-category X-Fedora param which all fedora packages should use.
Also don't forget to update %files for the changed dir.
done .
Nevertheless, I was unable to fix the
mkdir -p /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/knetstats cd
/usr/share/doc/HTML/en/knetstats
rm -f common ln -s ../common commonln: creating symbolic link
`common' to
`../common': Permission denied
change the build so that it doesnot try to install files outside of the
buildroot ?
How can I
Okay, this is because of a dirty hack in upstreams sources, there are 2
possible
fixes:
1) ignore the error (scons already does this) and add the following at the
end
of %install:
ln -s ../common $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/doc/HTML/en/knetstats/common
2) patch admin/kde.py to properly honor DESTDIR.
I was able to overcome that Permission Denied issue with
%install
rm -fr $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
scons prefix=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_prefix} install
but with rpmlint -i knetstats-1.5-5.i386.rpm, Ive fallen on
W: knetstats dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/knetstats/common
../common
The relative symbolic link points nowhere.
With f13's advice I've patched admin/kde.py accordingly.
Again with f13's advise, I've included scons as BR.
Updated:
Spec URL: http://beta.glwb.info/knetstats/knetstats.spec
SRPM URL: http://beta.glwb.info/knetstats/knetstats-1.5-5.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 194832] New: Review Request: pyxmms
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=194832 Summary: Review Request: pyxmms 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.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/pyxmms.spec SRPM URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/pyxmms-2.06-1.src.rpm Description: pyxmms is a set of python bindings for xmms -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194830] Review Request: CastPodder
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: CastPodder https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194830 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||194832 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-11 17:04 EST --- Spec URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/CastPodder.spec SRPM URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/CastPodder-5.0-2.src.rpm Fixed the requires - d'oh! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194832] Review Request: pyxmms
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pyxmms https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194832 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||194830 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 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] 2006-06-11 18:23 EST --- Re: comment #10 -update-desktop-database is deprecated It certainly is not deprecated (what makes you say that?). If the app's .desktop file contains MimeType= entries, ScriptletSnippets are clear that use of update-desktop-database in %post/%postun is required, (though IMO, there shouldn't be need for additional Requires for this, just like the icon cache case). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 19:03 EST --- updated http://www.marcanoonline.com/downloads/fedora/package_submissions/subclipse/ganymed.spec http://www.marcanoonline.com/downloads/fedora/package_submissions/subclipse/ganymed-209-3.src.rpm I applied the debuginfo workaround, (there are still warnings for the java inner classes, maybe find-debuginfo.sh must ignore class with $ in their names) Checked rpmlint warnings, the only no fixed warnings are wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding for HTML 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 191015] Review Request: javasvn
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: javasvn https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191015 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-11 19:06 EST --- updated http://www.marcanoonline.com/downloads/fedora/package_submissions/subclipse/javasvn.spec http://www.marcanoonline.com/downloads/fedora/package_submissions/subclipse/javasvn-1.0.4-3.src.rpm I applied the debuginfo workaround explained on bug #191014 Checked rpmlint warnings:, invalid-license TMate License - http://tmate.org/svn/license.html What to to about it, it is a BSD license with an added clause about the availiablity of the source code wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding for HTML files is not fixed because it is not needed -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-06-11 19:10 EST --- updated http://www.marcanoonline.com/downloads/fedora/package_submissions/subclipse/eclipse-subclipse.spec http://www.marcanoonline.com/downloads/fedora/package_submissions/subclipse/eclipse-subclipse-1.0.1-6.src.rpm I applied the debuginfo workaround explained on bug #191014 Checked rpmlint warnings: non-standard-group Text Editors/Integrated Development Environments (IDE) I am using the same group that is using eclipse eclipse-subclipse invalid-license CPL, Apache Software License subclipse and svnClientAdapter has those differente licenses -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-06-11 22:49 EST --- Hmmm. Things are looking good, but what's /usr/lib/q/libtool? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-11 22:53 EST --- APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192912] Review Request: paps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: paps https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192912 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-11 23:13 EST --- Ok, updated in Extras CVS, except dist tag. -- 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 192049] Review Request: gnash - GNU Flash player
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gnash - GNU Flash player https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192049 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 00:28 EST --- (In reply to comment #12) build fails here on x86_64 due to multilib issue (it tryes to link the 64bit files with 32bit libs) This is with the above srpm? And you have mesa-libGL-devel.x86_64 installed? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194305] Review Request: gtypist - GNU typing tutor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gtypist - GNU typing tutor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194305 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 00:58 EST --- Spec URL: http://gtypist.zing.fastmail.fm/gtypist.spec SRPM URL: http://gtypist.zing.fastmail.fm/gtypist-2.7-3.src.rpm * Mon Jun 12 2006 Zing [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 2.7-3 - do not use makeinstall macro - rm info dir file from buildroot? Could you explain the /usr/share/info/dir error? I don't see that in my i386 builds; Is it a x86-64 build error? Is the above the correct fix? 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 192912] Review Request: paps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: paps https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192912 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 01:03 EST --- (In reply to comment #7) Just a note that most (if not all) of the code in libpaps.c is essentially deprecated now that cairo has PS/PDF backends being enabled for FC6. It should be a matter of a weekend's work to get someone write a paps-like a2ps replacement using pangocairo. This can be fixed later of course, and the upstream author already knows about this and may in fact do it himself. Yes, upstream is aware of that. My other concern with paps as it stands now is its command line interface that we have to keep if we push it into Core. Instead of --fontscale and --family for example, it should have a single --font that takes a Pango font description. It sounds good. let me push it to upstream then. Such a tool can be included in Pango upstream in fact. Not as an example? it would be nice if it will continues to be maintained. If there's no strong reason for having paps or a similar tool in Core for FC6, I suggest postponing this and working on the replacement tool. We are focusing to improve the CIJK handling of the text printing and paps was a better candidate at that time - this was being developed since PS/PDF backend for cairo was experimental or before that, which wasn't relied on - We have decided to work on paps because it may be close to become successful at RHEL5 timeframe so that the improvement of CIJK text printing is our goal for RHEL5. plus, we have no enough time to make an another replacement from scratch so that FC6t1 will be coming soon. -- 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 192049] Review Request: gnash - GNU Flash player
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gnash - GNU Flash player https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192049 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 01:30 EST --- (In reply to comment #13) (In reply to comment #12) build fails here on x86_64 due to multilib issue (it tryes to link the 64bit files with 32bit libs) This is with the above srpm? yes And you have mesa-libGL-devel.x86_64 installed? yes: rpm -q mesa-libGL-devel.x86_64 mesa-libGL-devel-6.4.2-6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192049] Review Request: gnash - GNU Flash player
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gnash - GNU Flash player https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192049 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 01:41 EST --- (In reply to comment #14) This is with the above srpm? yes I don't know how to reproduce that error, so could you attach the full buildlog please? (Feel free to gzip it to save space, 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 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] 2006-06-12 01:42 EST --- (In reply to comment #12) Re: comment #10 -update-desktop-database is deprecated It certainly is not deprecated (what makes you say that?). Hans, you want to comment on this ? Anyone want to sponsor me for knetstats ? Hans ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192912] Review Request: paps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: paps https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192912 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 01:46 EST --- My other concern with paps as it stands now is its command line interface that we have to keep if we push it into Core. Instead of --fontscale and --family for example, it should have a single --font that takes a Pango font description. It sounds good. let me push it to upstream then. Ok good. While communicating with upstream, suggest that he ports paps to pangocairo over the weekend, and we may actually have it next week :-). Such a tool can be included in Pango upstream in fact. Not as an example? it would be nice if it will continues to be maintained. Yeah, I'm already trying to push the pango-view tool as a stable maintained tool (instead of an example), and it's been packaged in pango-devel for a while now. I also have wanted to add PS/PDF output support to it for a while. Main thing that needs to be done before pango-view can be used like paps is to make it break text into paragraphs before laying out (for performance reasons.) I'm actually not sure that paps does that. But anyway, I probably will get to doing that sooner or later, but can't make any promise at this point. If there's no strong reason for having paps or a similar tool in Core for FC6, I suggest postponing this and working on the replacement tool. We are focusing to improve the CIJK handling of the text printing and paps was a better candidate at that time - this was being developed since PS/PDF backend for cairo was experimental or before that, which wasn't relied on - We have decided to work on paps because it may be close to become successful at RHEL5 timeframe so that the improvement of CIJK text printing is our goal for RHEL5. plus, we have no enough time to make an another replacement from scratch so that FC6t1 will be coming soon. Ok, what about having a simple shell script called u2ps shipped and advertised in Core with a documented command line interface, and make it call paps as the implementation for now, but leave it open to switch to pango-view later on... The interface should be quite simple, a cat-like tool with the following options: --landscape --portrait (Default) --font (--font-size, --font-family, ...?) --margin --margin-left --margin-right --margin-top --margin-bottom --header=[TEXT] --footer=[TEXT] That should be enough for now, and (except for footer?) paps supports the rest already, with different namings possibly. Another thing that should work in u2ps but is not currently working in paps is setting default paper size based on LC_PAPER. We can make the wrapper figure out the paper and pass it to paps for now, and use it to set page size later with pango-view. -- 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
