[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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #130941|0 |1 is obsolete|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 01:53 EST --- Created an attachment (id=130942) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=130942action=view) other file sorry for the typo here is the other 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 194132] Review Request: yum-metadata-parser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: yum-metadata-parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194132 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 02:04 EST --- 1. I don't want to make the yum package arch-specific 2. it's not a necessary component of yum - it's optional but a significant speed up 3. it's a separate package in upstream and I'd like to diminish the confusion b/t upstream pkgs and fedora. 4. in the same way that we split out urlgrabber from yum base - I'd like this to be done the same. 5. it makes for easier upgrades b/c if we fix a bug in the metadata-parser we don't have to ship a whole new yum pkg - some people get nervous about updates to their updating system for obvious reasons. -- 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 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 02:22 EST --- (In reply to comment #12) Re: comment #10 -update-desktop-database is deprecated It certainly is not deprecated (what makes you say that?). Sorry, deprected in deed is the wrong way to formulate this, what I meant is usually calling update-desktop-database is no longer needed unless: the app's .desktop file contains MimeType= entries, ScriptletSnippets are clear that use of update-desktop-database in %post/%postun is required. --- (In reply to comment #13) (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 ? See above, the knetstats does not contain any MimeType's, so the call to update-desktop-database should be removed (and the Requires). Anyone want to sponsor me for knetstats ? Hans ? Quoting myself from comment #6: I see (from google) that you're already active in other area's of the Fedora project, good! As such I'm willing to sponsor you, but first you must show some more / better understanding of the FE packaging guidelines. There are 2 ways to show this better understanding: 1) You review a couple of packages from others see FE-NEW for a list of Review Requests that need a Reviewer, don't worry about not being competent enough todo a review, just add me to the CC-list and I'll watch over your back. 2) Create some more packages and put me in the CC for the Review Request So yes, I'm willing to sponsor you (eventually) provided that you show a somewhat better understanding of the packaging guidelines then you've done sofar. (Sofar is ok, you're still learning I understand!). So lets first get this package approved (but not yet imported as your not sponsored), and then I think it would be a good idea for you to package something else (maybe you already have) and get that reviewed too, usually after 2 packages most people are beginning to understand the guidelines good enough to get sponsored (good enough for my taste atleast). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193929] Review Request: knetstats
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: knetstats https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193929 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 02:33 EST --- (In reply to comment #9) 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. I'm not sure that I understood what you mean though, paps splits up each lines into the paragraphs. 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: It's not a bad idea though, I imagined gnome-u2ps which is on GNOME CVS, but anyway. I don't know how it is recognized in the world, I at least got confused. I like a concept to provide a standard interface, otherwise. That should be enough for now, and (except for footer?) paps supports the rest already, with different namings possibly. Well, there are some required features from CUPS side too. using this as an replacement of a commandline printing tool such as a2ps is also one of the way though, the main thing are to work together on CUPS and to replaces the various printing filters which is just kept to get CJK printing working as I described earlier. no particular advantages there. That is in my todo anyway. 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. Ok, it's probably a feature that needs to be implemented. -- 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 191605] Review Request: lineak-defaultplugin - default actions for lineakd
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: lineak-defaultplugin - default actions for lineakd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191605 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: lineak- |lineak_defaultplugin - |defaultplugin - default |default actions for lineakd |actions for lineakd -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191606] Review Request: lineak-kdeplugins - KDE-based actions for lineakd
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: lineak-kdeplugins - KDE-based actions for lineakd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191606 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: lineak- |lineak_kdeplugins - KDE-|kdeplugins - KDE-based |based actions for lineakd |actions for lineakd -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191607] Review Request: lineak-xosdplugin - Onscreen display support for lineakd
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: lineak-xosdplugin - Onscreen display support for lineakd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191607 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: lineak- |lineak_xosdplugin - Onscreen|xosdplugin - Onscreen |display support for lineakd |display support for lineakd -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193982] Review Request: osgal - Adapts OpenSceneGraph to use OpenAL++
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: osgal - Adapts OpenSceneGraph to use OpenAL++ https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193982 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 03:09 EST --- Just to let you know, I havn't closed this bug yet due to some extremely bizarre buildsys error which is causing build failers on FC5 i386/ppc platforms. The root.log indicates that libXext is not being installed even though libXxf86vm is being installed. I cannot explain why the error occurs. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193982] Review Request: osgal - Adapts OpenSceneGraph to use OpenAL++
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: osgal - Adapts OpenSceneGraph to use OpenAL++ https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193982 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 03:15 EST --- Ah, I hit the same but only on FC-5 I thought it as an FC-5 dep error, I fixed it by explicitly requiring libXext, but I see that was a bit hackish of me now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 03:20 EST --- Created an attachment (id=130944) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=130944action=view) rpmbuild.log.gz -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 03:25 EST --- Could you try to compare your full rpmbuild output with this successful build? If you could try building with mock too that would help: it builds fine for me in mock (fc5) too. What is your environment? FC5, FC devel, or ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ 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 URL||http://people.redhat.com/rvo ||kal/wireshark/wireshark- ||0.99.1pre1-1.2.src.rpm Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED])| |2006| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 03:48 EST --- Modified spec file is here, only libs were in Requires so I have removed them all. New srpm is here http://people.redhat.com/rvokal/wireshark/wireshark-0.99.1pre1-1.2.src.rpm I'd like to include it in FC6 so ping me anytime if there still have to be done some changes. -- 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 03:49 EST --- Missed the spec file link http://people.redhat.com/rvokal/wireshark/wireshark.spec -- 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 185531] Review Request: fcron, a task scheduler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: fcron, a task scheduler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185531 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 05:36 EST --- Spec Name or Url: http://linuxelectronique.free.fr/download/fedora/5/SPECS/fcron.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://linuxelectronique.free.fr/download/fedora/5/SRPMS/fcron-3.0.1-9.src.rpm %changelog * Mon Jun 12 2006 Alain Portal aportal[AT]univ-montp2[DOT]fr 3.0.1-9 - Don't start fcron by default - Add documentation to start fcron by default - Add %%lang(fr) for french man pages -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2006-06-12 06:06 EST --- I now make it use the system libtool. The final version 7.1 has been released: http://math.ifi.unizh.ch/fedora/5/i386/SRPMS.gemi/q-7.1-1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2006-06-12 07:52 EST --- My vote would be for the app to go in /usr/share and the data to be in /var/lib/bugzilla (via a symlink if necessary). The only SELinux fiddling that should be necessary would I think to be to have /var/lib/bugzilla(/.*)? as httpd_var_lib_t. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193157] Review Request: system-config-selinux
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: system-config-selinux https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193157 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 08:01 EST --- No, How do I go about getting it? -- 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: 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 08:03 EST --- Package has (already) been approved. Go ahead and import into cvs, request builds, etc... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190189] Review Request: PyQt4: Python bindings for Qt4
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: PyQt4: Python bindings for Qt4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190189 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||194859 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190189] Review Request: PyQt4: Python bindings for Qt4
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: PyQt4: Python bindings for Qt4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190189 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 08:14 EST --- Spec URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/SPECS/PyQt4-4.0-1.spec SRPM URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/all/SRPMS.stable/PyQt4-4.0-1.src.rpm %changelog * Mon Jun 12 2006 Rex Dieter rexdieter[AT]users.sf.net 4.0-1 - 4.0(final) - BR: sip-devel = 4.4.4 (see bug #194859) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177580] Review Request: lat (LDAP Administration Tool)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: lat (LDAP Administration Tool)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177580
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 08:16 EST ---
(In reply to comment #14)
MUST fix:
=
* %post and %postun call update-desktop-database this is deprecated and must
be removed.
When did this happen? Where is it documented? The ScriptletSnippets wiki page
still says to use it for applications with a MIME Type definition.
As it happens, this package doesn't have a MIME Type definition, so I've removed
the update-desktop-database calls, but I'd like to know more about the
deprecation.
* no %doc, not even for COPYING!
Whoops. Fixed.
* unowned dirs: /usr/share/omf /usr/share/gnome /use/gnome/help, I know this
is somwhat controversial, but lat doesnot depend on any packages which
provide
these dirs, so it should own them. Feel free to discuss this on f-e-l if
you
disagree.
I don't disagree. Fixed.
* /usr/pixmaps/lat.png must be moved to /usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22/apps/
in %install and then the icon-cache should be properly updated in %post and
%postun (see wiki scriptlets page).
Done.
Should fix:
===
* in %install you write:
# remove libtool archives
/usr/bin/find %{buildroot}%{_libdir} -name '*.la' -exec %{__rm} -f {} \;
This is a mono app, does it install .la files?
This was a hangover from the upstream spec file, and I've removed it.
I've also disabled the creation of the debuginfo package (which would be empty),
added a missing buildreq of gettext, and replaced the %{_libdir} mono hack with
something a little less horrible.
New spec, SRPM, and FC5 i386 RPM available here:
http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/lat/
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193957] Review Request: nant
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: nant https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193957 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||177580 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 177580] Review Request: lat (LDAP Administration Tool)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: lat (LDAP Administration Tool) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177580 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 09:22 EST --- (In reply to comment #14) Is there not a pkg file for this? If there is, it needs a -devel package. Also, debug info is usually available - it gets picked up by mono-debugger. I'm not sure if the packaging app understands that though :-( -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177580] Review Request: lat (LDAP Administration Tool)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: lat (LDAP Administration Tool) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177580 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 09:24 EST --- (In reply to comment #11) As it's a mono app, I'm more than happy to take it on if PH doesn't want 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 193191] Review Request: rename of notify-daemon to notification-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: rename of notify-daemon to notification-daemon https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193191 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|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 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 09:34 EST --- (In reply to comment #19) Could you try to compare your full rpmbuild output with this successful build? ok will do that If you could try building with mock too that would help: it builds fine for me in mock (fc5) too. in mock it should work because there are no 32bit libs What is your environment? FC5, FC devel, or ? FC5 with lastest updates (+nvidia driver maybe this is causing the gl issues?) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177580] Review Request: lat (LDAP Administration Tool)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: lat (LDAP Administration Tool) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177580 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 09:41 EST --- (In reply to comment #18) (In reply to comment #14) Is there not a pkg file for this? If there is, it needs a -devel package. There isn't one. Also, debug info is usually available - it gets picked up by mono-debugger. I'm not sure if the packaging app understands that though :-( When it was building a debuginfo package, it was empty. There were no -s options used by install, no calls to strip, and there are no ELF binaries in the package, so I thought turning off debuginfo would be OK. (In reply to comment #19) As it's a mono app, I'm more than happy to take it on if PH doesn't want it I think it's probably best to have a few people looking after mono packages, for the sake of diversity. Ideally, the maintainer of the package should be someone that actively uses 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 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 09:44 EST --- (In reply to comment #3) * 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? Whether it gets created or not depends on what's already installed on the build machine. Since the file is not actually wanted in the package, the correct thing to do is indeed to rm -f it at the end of %install. That way it gets deleted if it's made, and there's no error if the file wasn't created in the first place. Many other packages in Extras use the same approach. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 Component|Package Review |distribution OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |150223 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 184450] Review Request: wcstools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: wcstools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=184450
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 10:03 EST ---
I have written upstream, commenting the issue with the license. I have also sent
a patch for edhead. In the mean time:
* rpmlint warns about not stripped binaries = ignored (comment #7)
* when compiling edhead there is a security warning = I have made a patch, also
send upstream
* Makefile should use ${RPM_OPT_FLAGS} = done (thanks #11)
* when creating the shared lib use $(CC) = done
* licensing = requested info upstream, changed license of subpackages to LGPL
* the libwcs subpackage should go into System Environment/Libraries group =
done
* the libwcs subpackage should provide libwcs.so.3 = done
These are the spec and srpm with the listed fixes.
http://t-rex.fis.ucm.es/~spr/wcstools.spec
http://t-rex.fis.ucm.es/~spr/wcstools-3.6.4-2.fc5.src.rpm
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193531] Review Request: kicad - Electronic schematic diagrams and printed circuit board artwork
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kicad - Electronic schematic diagrams and printed circuit board artwork https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193531 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 10:14 EST --- Spec URL: http://linuxelectronique.free.fr/download/fedora/5/SPECS/kicad.spec SRPM URL: http://linuxelectronique.free.fr/download/fedora/5/SRPMS/kicad-2006-04-24-0-4.src.rpm %changelog * Mon Jun 12 2006 Alain Portal aportal[AT]univ-montp2[DOT]fr 2006-04-24-0-4 - Patch to suppress extra qualification compile time error on FC5 - BR utrac to convert MSDOS files before applying patch This will be remove for the next upstream 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 192889] Review Request: openais standards based cluster framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: openais standards based cluster framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192889 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 10:35 EST --- What is the ais user used for? Nothing in the package is owned by this user, nor does the service run as that user. I don't understand this comment in the changelog: * Fri Jun 9 2006 Steven Dake [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 0.76-1.6 - Change condrestart to restart as specified in Fedora Wiki. What exactly has been changed, and why? -- 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 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 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194374] Review Request: kdegames: K Desktop Environment - Games
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdegames: K Desktop Environment - Games https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194374 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 11:14 EST --- # TODO: decide a good location for a world-writable --enable-highscore-dir=DIR Maybe /var/games? Some distros are already using it. BTW, I'm doing some experiences with this package regarding the subpackage approach we discussed in IRC other day (nickname Eitch). I'll follow this bug to let you know about something. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194374] Review Request: kdegames: K Desktop Environment - Games
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdegames: K Desktop Environment - Games https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194374 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 11:17 EST --- Hugo, if you're willing to maintain kdegames, I'm all for the subpackage approach... (: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 11:18 EST --- Question: - In Summary, why are we listing Red Hat Desktop integration? Surely we aren't talking about the Desktop product we sell? Is this not GENERIC gnome frontend? Why can't we just say 'Gnome integration' ? Think of the trademark problems. Needswork: - Missing BuildRequires on desktop-file-utils, automake, libtool rpmlint output: E: wireshark invalid-version 0.99.1pre1 W: wireshark incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.99.1pre1-1 0.99.1pre1-1.2 W: wireshark conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/pam.d/wireshark W: wireshark conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/security/console.apps/wireshark E: wireshark zero-length /usr/sbin/idl2wrs E: wireshark script-without-shellbang /usr/sbin/idl2wrs W: wireshark devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libwiretap.so W: wireshark devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libwireshark.so W: wireshark symlink-should-be-relative /usr/sbin/tethereal /usr/sbin/tshark W: wireshark doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/wireshark-0.99.1pre1/doc/dfilter2pod.pl /usr/bin/perl -- 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 194353] Review Request: gdk-pixbuf
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gdk-pixbuf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194353 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 11:25 EST --- ah, sorry. broken links: http://people.redhat.com/mclasen/review/gdk-pixbuf.spec http://people.redhat.com/mclasen/review/gdk-pixbuf-0.22.0-23.src.rpm will work better. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194355] Review Request: imlib
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: imlib https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194355 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 11:27 EST --- Sorry, broken links: http://people.redhat.com/mclasen/review/imlib.spec http://people.redhat.com/mclasen/review/imlib-1.9.13-26.2.1.src.rpm should work better -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194355] Review Request: imlib
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: imlib
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194355
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 11:43 EST ---
NEEDSWORK:
- Buildroot wrong
- Obsoletes: imlib-cfgeditor w/out a Provides: imlib-cfgeditor for upgrade paths
- in devel: Requires: imlib = %{epoch}:%{version} should be Requires: imlib =
%{epoch}:%{version}-%{release}
- Missing BR libtool (and possibly more)
- rpmlint not happy:
E: imlib explicit-lib-dependency libjpeg
E: imlib explicit-lib-dependency libtiff
W: imlib summary-ended-with-dot An image loading and rendering library for
X11R6.
E: imlib obsolete-not-provided Imlib
E: imlib obsolete-not-provided imlib-cfgeditor
E: imlib invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libimlib-gif.so libimlib-gif.so
E: imlib invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libimlib-ps.so libimlib-ps.so
E: imlib invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libimlib-tiff.so libimlib-tiff.so
E: imlib invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libimlib-xpm.so libimlib-xpm.so
E: imlib invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libimlib-png.so libimlib-png.so
E: imlib invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libimlib-bmp.so libimlib-bmp.so
E: imlib invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libimlib-ppm.so libimlib-ppm.so
E: imlib invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libimlib-jpeg.so libimlib-jpeg.so
W: imlib conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/im_palette-small.pal
W: imlib conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/im_palette-tiny.pal
W: imlib conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/im_palette.pal
W: imlib conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/imrc
E: imlib zero-length /usr/share/doc/imlib-1.9.13/NEWS
W: imlib-devel summary-ended-with-dot Development tools for Imlib applications.
E: imlib-devel obsolete-not-provided Imlib
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194374] Review Request: kdegames: K Desktop Environment - Games
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdegames: K Desktop Environment - Games https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194374 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 11:55 EST --- Hi Rex! I don't know if I can maintain it (yet) but I'm doing this for research first. I'll try to make a clean spec with the subpackage approach and present people with it. Then we'll see if it's worthy to maintain using one of the methods :) I think that with these big packages, it will be good to have one or more co-maintainers too, even not using the subpackages approach. As I'm in KDE SIG, count on me to help you on this, like testing, reviewing and such :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 184450] Review Request: wcstools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: wcstools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=184450 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 12:05 EST --- Good work, but there are still 3 warning during the compile about buffer overflow in strcpy (2x in catutil.c and in getdate.c) and one about incompatible pointer in binread.c (line 1342, probably a missing typecast to char *), they should be fixed too. Then should be all from the programmer's side solved. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194374] Review Request: kdegames: K Desktop Environment - Games
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdegames: K Desktop Environment - Games https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194374 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 12:00 EST --- I certainly agree with the co-maintainer and/or (kde)team maintainership approach... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194607] Review Request: openssl-ibmca
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: openssl-ibmca https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194607 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]| |m)2006 | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 12:13 EST --- Well, it's because it's basically a split off from openssl right now and a feature request by IBM and PM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194255 Read ya, Phil -- 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 194606] Review Request: libica
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libica https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194606 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]| |m)2006 | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 12:13 EST --- Well, it's because it's basically a split off from openssl right now and a feature request by IBM and PM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194255 Read ya, Phil -- 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 194606] Review Request: libica
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libica https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194606 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 12:37 EST --- So put it in RHEL, not Fedora. I can't imagine there being any s390(x) Fedora users out there that would actually test the package, so you can build the package , make it available in say people.redhat.com and ask targetted folks to test it before the RHEL5 splits. -- 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 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] 2006-06-12 12:40 EST --- Now that I finally understand what bugzilla needs to write, I agree that /var/lib/bugzilla is indeed the proper place. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194607] Review Request: openssl-ibmca
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: openssl-ibmca https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194607 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 12:42 EST --- So put it in RHEL, not Fedora. I can't imagine there being any s390(x) Fedora users out there that would actually test the package, so you can build the package , make it available in say people.redhat.com and ask targetted folks to test it before the RHEL5 splits. -- 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 194606] Review Request: libica
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libica https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194606 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 12:45 EST --- Actually, there are some people who actually do take a look at the s390(x) Fedora stuff (see LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU). And if we don't put it in FC-Core i'd need to pull those package in again for every new RHEL release and maintain it separate from FC as well. If we could get an official word that FC-Extras packages can get pulled into RHEL without endless discussion i'd of course prefere that. Read ya, Phil -- 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 194607] Review Request: openssl-ibmca
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: openssl-ibmca https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194607 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 12:45 EST --- Actually, there are some people who actually do take a look at the s390(x) Fedora stuff (see LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU). And if we don't put it in FC-Core i'd need to pull those package in again for every new RHEL release and maintain it separate from FC as well. If we could get an official word that FC-Extras packages can get pulled into RHEL without endless discussion i'd of course prefere that. Read ya, Phil -- 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 194888] Review Request: gfs2-utils
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: gfs2-utils
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194888
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |NEEDINFO_REPORTER
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OtherBugsDependingO|188265 |188267
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 12:48 EST ---
NEEDSWORK:
- Buildroot should be
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
- Please use lowercase for 'fc6' as that will match what is done in Extras (and
soon Core) with the %{?dist} tag.
- No URL tag
- ./configure --kernel_src=/home/msp/cfeist/gfs2/gfs2-2.6 Likely to fail in
buildsystems.
Indeed, fails to build:
make[1]: Entering directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/gfs2-utils-0.1.0/gfs2/edit'
gcc -Wall -I../include -I../config -I../libgfs2 -I//usr/include -ggdb
-DHELPER_PROGRAM -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -DGFS2_RELEASE_NAME=\0.1.0\
-I../include -I../config -I../libgfs2 -I//usr/include -L../libgfs2/ gfs2hex.c
hexedit.c -lncurses -o gfs2_edit -lgfs2
gfs2hex.c:24:20: error: curses.h: No such file or directory
Also, rpmlint didn't like the srpm:
E: gfs2-utils configure-without-libdir-spec
E: gfs2-utils configure-without-libdir-spec
--
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 178922] Review Request: asterisk - The Open Source PBX
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: asterisk - The Open Source PBX https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178922 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 13:10 EST --- I've tried building zaptel-kmod on FC5 x86_64 with this command on kernel 2.6.16-1.2133_FC5: rpmbuild -D'kversion 2.6.16-1.2133_FC5' --rebuild zaptel-1.2.6-3.fc5.src.rpm But I'm getting symbol errors, seems like the kernel modules are build without the correct options: zaptel: Unknown symbol __stack_chk_fail -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 184080] Review Request: webmin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: webmin https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=184080 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added QAContact|fedora-extras- |fedora-package- |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 13:16 EST --- my own personal issue is with webmin itself -- after looking inside it to see how it does what it does, I was quite horrified to discover it looked more like Perl 4 than Perl 5 ... the way the whole thing is put together is quite frightening; sure, it may *work* (for varying degrees of 'work') but it seriously needs a rewrite into more modern Perl constructs, not the least of which reasons revolves around security, let alone maintainability, or refactoring for efficiency. Webmin is, imho, long past due for a complete overhaul. my $0.02 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ 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|ASSIGNED|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 194132] Review Request: yum-metadata-parser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: yum-metadata-parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194132 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |NEEDINFO_REPORTER --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 13:28 EST --- Package added to dist-fc6. Please close this report when package is built. -- 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 Status|NEW |NEEDINFO_REPORTER --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 13:33 EST --- Packages added to dist-fc6, please close this bug when built. Also, I'll need installer and comps update information. -- 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 194606] Review Request: libica
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libica https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194606 [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 194607] Review Request: openssl-ibmca
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: openssl-ibmca https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194607 [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 194606] Review Request: libica
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libica https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194606 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |NEW Keywords||Reopened Resolution|CANTFIX | OtherBugsDependingO||188272 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 13:43 EST --- Moving this to RHEL 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 194607] Review Request: openssl-ibmca
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: openssl-ibmca https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194607 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |NEW Keywords||Reopened Resolution|CANTFIX | OtherBugsDependingO||188272 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 13:44 EST --- Moving to RHEL 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 194606] Review Request: libica
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libica https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194606 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Product|Fedora Core |Red Hat Enterprise Linux ||Beta Version|devel |5.0.0 Component|Package Review |Package Review Group||qa,devel,rhel_beta -- 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 194607] Review Request: openssl-ibmca
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: openssl-ibmca https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194607 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Product|Fedora Core |Red Hat Enterprise Linux ||Beta Version|devel |5.0.0 Component|Package Review |Package Review Group||rhel_beta -- 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 192889] Review Request: openais standards based cluster framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: openais standards based cluster framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192889 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 14:02 EST --- Paul, Any application that wants to use the AIS must be user ais. Read SECURITY for a description of the IPC authentication and why the ais user is needed. The Fedora Wiki states that condrestart should not be done in post, but instead in postun. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ScriptletSnippets?highlight=%28snippets%29#head-24ef9d59bda6032df14cf3cb433ce4ef09348f69 It was previously done in post, as you suggested in comment #22. In comment #41 you suggest an alternative method to one line the postun step which is what is done in the new spec file. Regards -steve -- 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 192889] Review Request: openais standards based cluster framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: openais standards based cluster framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192889 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 14:09 EST --- (In reply to comment #47) Any application that wants to use the AIS must be user ais. Read SECURITY for a description of the IPC authentication and why the ais user is needed. OK, so there's nothing in this package that needs to be owned by that user, nor does the service need to run as that user - just trying to understand things. The Fedora Wiki states that condrestart should not be done in post, but instead in postun. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ScriptletSnippets?highlight=%28snippets%29#head-24ef9d59bda6032df14cf3cb433ce4ef09348f69 It was previously done in post, as you suggested in comment #22. In comment #41 you suggest an alternative method to one line the postun step which is what is done in the new spec file. Right, so the changelog entry should have been more like: - Move condrestart to %%postun instead of %%post rather than: - Change condrestart to restart as specified in Fedora Wiki Changing condrestart to restart would have been something very different, and very wrong, which is why I was confused about it. -- 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 178922] Review Request: asterisk - The Open Source PBX
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: asterisk - The Open Source PBX https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178922 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 14:30 EST --- First off, are you building zaptel or zaptel-kmod? They are two different packages. Second, please keep discussion of the zaptel packages here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177584 The zaptel-kmod bug is here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177583 I was able to build zaptel-kmod against FC5/x86_64 without problems, but can't really test (no FC5 x86_64 box). (In reply to comment #48) I've tried building zaptel-kmod on FC5 x86_64 with this command on kernel 2.6.16-1.2133_FC5: rpmbuild -D'kversion 2.6.16-1.2133_FC5' --rebuild zaptel-1.2.6-3.fc5.src.rpm But I'm getting symbol errors, seems like the kernel modules are build without the correct options: zaptel: Unknown symbol __stack_chk_fail -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194278] Review Request: kdeadmin: Administrative tools for KDE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdeadmin: Administrative tools for KDE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194278 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 14:32 EST --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] kde]$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core/result/kdeadmin-3.5.3-2.x86_64.rpm W: kdeadmin no-url-tag E: kdeadmin file-in-usr-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/config.kcfg/kuser.kcfg W: kdeadmin conffile-without-noreplace-flag /usr/share/config.kcfg/kuser.kcfg E: kdeadmin file-in-usr-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/config/kpackagerc W: kdeadmin conffile-without-noreplace-flag /usr/share/config/kpackagerc E: kdeadmin file-in-usr-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/config/ksysvrc W: kdeadmin conffile-without-noreplace-flag /usr/share/config/ksysvrc E: kdeadmin file-in-usr-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/config/kuserrc W: kdeadmin conffile-without-noreplace-flag /usr/share/config/kuserrc W: kdeadmin dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/kcron/common ../common W: kdeadmin dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/lilo-config/common ../common W: kdeadmin dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/knetworkconf/common ../common W: kdeadmin dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/kpackage/common ../common W: kdeadmin devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/system-tools-backends.pc W: kdeadmin dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/kuser/common ../common W: kdeadmin dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/kdat/common ../common W: kdeadmin dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/ksysv/common ../common as a start -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192889] Review Request: openais standards based cluster framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: openais standards based cluster framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192889 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 14:34 EST --- (In reply to comment #48) (In reply to comment #47) Any application that wants to use the AIS must be user ais. Read SECURITY for a description of the IPC authentication and why the ais user is needed. OK, so there's nothing in this package that needs to be owned by that user, nor does the service need to run as that user - just trying to understand things. Yes your understanding is correct. The Fedora Wiki states that condrestart should not be done in post, but instead in postun. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ScriptletSnippets?highlight=%28snippets%29#head-24ef9d59bda6032df14cf3cb433ce4ef09348f69 It was previously done in post, as you suggested in comment #22. In comment #41 you suggest an alternative method to one line the postun step which is what is done in the new spec file. Right, so the changelog entry should have been more like: - Move condrestart to %%postun instead of %%post yes sorry for causing confusion with the changelog. rather than: - Change condrestart to restart as specified in Fedora Wiki Changing condrestart to restart would have been something very different, and very wrong, which is why I was confused about it. -- 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 177583] Review Request: zaptel-kmod
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: zaptel-kmod https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177583 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 14:45 EST --- I'm getting symbol errors both when trying to build kmod-zaptel on fc5.x86_64 and while installing pre build packages from repo.ocjtech.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] asterisk]# rpm -ivh kmod-zaptel-1.2.6-5.2.6.16_1.2133_FC5.x86_64.rpm Preparing...### [100%] 1:kmod-zaptel### [100%] WARNING: /lib/modules/2.6.16-1.2133_FC5/extra/zaptel/pciradio.ko needs unknown symbol __stack_chk_fail WARNING: /lib/modules/2.6.16-1.2133_FC5/extra/zaptel/wct4xxp.ko needs unknown symbol __stack_chk_fail WARNING: /lib/modules/2.6.16-1.2133_FC5/extra/zaptel/wcusb.ko needs unknown symbol __stack_chk_fail WARNING: /lib/modules/2.6.16-1.2133_FC5/extra/zaptel/wctdm24xxp.ko needs unknown symbol __stack_chk_fail WARNING: /lib/modules/2.6.16-1.2133_FC5/extra/zaptel/ztd-eth.ko needs unknown symbol __stack_chk_fail WARNING: /lib/modules/2.6.16-1.2133_FC5/extra/zaptel/wctdm.ko needs unknown symbol __stack_chk_fail WARNING: /lib/modules/2.6.16-1.2133_FC5/extra/zaptel/ztdynamic.ko needs unknown symbol __stack_chk_fail WARNING: /lib/modules/2.6.16-1.2133_FC5/extra/zaptel/wcte11xp.ko needs unknown symbol __stack_chk_fail WARNING: /lib/modules/2.6.16-1.2133_FC5/extra/zaptel/zaptel.ko needs unknown symbol __stack_chk_fail Same error when building the packages my self -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194888] Review Request: gfs2-utils
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: gfs2-utils
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194888
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEEDINFO_REPORTER |ASSIGNED
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 14:59 EST ---
- Fixed the buildroot
- Added changed FC6 to fc6.
- Added the URL tag
- That kernel src line was required because we didn't have the necessary headers
in fc6 kern headers package.
- Added ncurses as a requirement ncurses-devel as a build requirement
I've also added --libdir=%{_libdir} to both configure lines so the libs will go
in the correct place on 64 bit archs.
--
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 193531] Review Request: kicad - Electronic schematic diagrams and printed circuit board artwork
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kicad - Electronic schematic diagrams and printed circuit board artwork https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193531 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 15:01 EST --- Hello, This is not a real official review, just a review from an intern packager. :) # 1 The rpmlint _does_ return warning/errors: chitlesh(i386)[0]$rpmlint -i kicad-2006-04-24-0-4.i386.rpm W: kicad-2006-04-24 incoherent-version-in-changelog 2006-04-24-0-4 0-4 Your last entry in %changelog contains a version that is not coherent with the current version of your package. W: kicad-2006-04-24 wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/kicad/pt/contents.hhc This file has wrong end-of-line encoding, usually caused by creation or modification on a non-Unix system. It could prevent it from being displayed correctly in some circumstances. W: kicad-2006-04-24 wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/kicad/fr/pcbnew/pcbnew.html This file has wrong end-of-line encoding, usually caused by creation or modification on a non-Unix system. It could prevent it from being displayed correctly in some circumstances. W: kicad-2006-04-24 file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/kicad/en/pcbnew/doc_pcbnew.zip The character encoding of this file is not UTF-8. Consider converting it in the specfile for example using iconv(1). W: kicad-2006-04-24 wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/kicad-2006-04-24-0/author.txt This file has wrong end-of-line encoding, usually caused by creation or modification on a non-Unix system. It could prevent it from being displayed correctly in some circumstances. W: kicad-2006-04-24 wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/kicad/fr/kicad/kicad.html This file has wrong end-of-line encoding, usually caused by creation or modification on a non-Unix system. It could prevent it from being displayed correctly in some circumstances. W: kicad-2006-04-24 wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/kicad/en/cvpcb/cvpcb-en.pdf This file has wrong end-of-line encoding, usually caused by creation or modification on a non-Unix system. It could prevent it from being displayed correctly in some circumstances. E: kicad-2006-04-24 script-without-shellbang /usr/share/doc/kicad-2006-04-24-0/gpl.txt This executable text file does not contain a shebang, thus it cannot be properly executed. Often this is a sign of spurious executable bits for a non-script file, but can also be a case of a missing shebang. To fix this error, find out which case of the above it is, and either remove the executable bits or add the shebang. E: kicad-2006-04-24 wrong-script-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/kicad-2006-04-24-0/gpl.txt This script has wrong end-of-line encoding, usually caused by creation or modification on a non-Unix system. It will prevent its execution. W: kicad-2006-04-24 wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/kicad/en/pcbnew/pcbnew.html This file has wrong end-of-line encoding, usually caused by creation or modification on a non-Unix system. It could prevent it from being displayed correctly in some circumstances. E: kicad-2006-04-24 script-without-shellbang /usr/share/doc/kicad-2006-04-24-0/readme.txt This executable text file does not contain a shebang, thus it cannot be properly executed. Often this is a sign of spurious executable bits for a non-script file, but can also be a case of a missing shebang. To fix this error, find out which case of the above it is, and either remove the executable bits or add the shebang. E: kicad-2006-04-24 wrong-script-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/kicad-2006-04-24-0/readme.txt This script has wrong end-of-line encoding, usually caused by creation or modification on a non-Unix system. It will prevent its execution. W: kicad-2006-04-24 wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/kicad/en/contents.hhc This file has wrong end-of-line encoding, usually caused by creation or modification on a non-Unix system. It could prevent it from being displayed correctly in some circumstances. W: kicad-2006-04-24 wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/kicad-2006-04-24-0/contrib.txt This file has wrong end-of-line encoding, usually caused by creation or modification on a non-Unix system. It could prevent it from being displayed correctly in some circumstances. W: kicad-2006-04-24 wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/kicad/fr/cvpcb/cvpcb.pdf This file has wrong end-of-line encoding, usually caused by creation or modification on a non-Unix system. It could prevent it from being displayed correctly in some circumstances. W: kicad-2006-04-24 wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/kicad/pt/pcbnew/pcbnew.html This file has wrong end-of-line encoding, usually caused by creation or modification on a non-Unix system. It could prevent it from being displayed correctly in some
[Bug 194888] Review Request: gfs2-utils
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gfs2-utils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194888 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 15:01 EST --- Also, new location of the srpm is: http://people.redhat.com/cfeist/gfs2-utils-0.1.0-1.fc6.1.src.rpm Spec file is at the same location: http://people.redhat.com/cfeist/gfs2-utils.spec -- 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 194278] Review Request: kdeadmin: Administrative tools for KDE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdeadmin: Administrative tools for KDE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194278 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 15:04 EST --- W: kdeadmin no-url-tag I suppose we could use http://www.kde.org/ until something better can be found. E: kdeadmin file-in-usr-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/config.kcfg/kuser.kcfg W: kdeadmin conffile-without-noreplace-flag /usr/share/config.kcfg/kuser.kcfg CANTFIX (here, at least). These *are* config files, but have to use what upstream(kdelibs) specified for the config dir, which is /usr/share/config by default. W: kdeadmin dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/kcron/common ../common harmless. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192577] Review Request: perl-OpenFrame
Please 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-OpenFrame https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192577 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 15:06 EST --- I saw the mention of the OSI-approved license thing on their web site, but that seems to be as specific as they get. Maybe I'll get lucky and someone authoritative will be at YAPC in a couple of weeks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193846] Review Request: ganglia - Ganglia Distributed Monitoring System
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ganglia - Ganglia Distributed Monitoring System https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193846 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193846] Review Request: ganglia - Ganglia Distributed Monitoring System
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ganglia - Ganglia Distributed Monitoring System https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193846 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 15:12 EST --- Latest build is now ganglia-3.0.3-6, which from working w/jkeating, now contains the following additional changes: - Remove misplaced execute perms on source files - Whack Obsoletes/Provides, since its never been in FE before - Use mandir macro - Check if service is running before issuing a stop in postun - Remove shadow-utils Prereq, its on the FE exception list Spec and srpm available at: http://wilsonet.com/packages/ganglia/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193531] Review Request: kicad - Electronic schematic diagrams and printed circuit board artwork
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: kicad - Electronic schematic diagrams and printed
circuit board artwork
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193531
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 15:15 EST ---
# 2.3 : add the following after %clean since you are using kicad.desktop
%post
touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || :
%postun
touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || :
-
The following will be appropriate since in the kicad.desktop there is MimeType
%post
update-desktop-database /dev/null ||:
touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || :
%postun
update-desktop-database /dev/null ||:
touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || :
# 2:
%{_docdir} would be better than %{_datadir}/doc/
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177583] Review Request: zaptel-kmod
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: zaptel-kmod https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177583 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 15:17 EST --- Me too. [EMAIL PROTECTED] tjb]# modprobe zaptel FATAL: Error inserting zaptel (/lib/modules/2.6.16-1.2133_FC5smp/extra/zaptel/zaptel.ko): Unknown symbol in module, or unknown parameter (see dmesg) [EMAIL PROTECTED] tjb]# -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194355] Review Request: imlib
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: imlib https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194355 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 15:44 EST --- New spec: http://people.redhat.com/mclasen/review/imlib.spec New srpm: http://people.redhat.com/mclasen/review/imlib-1.9.13-27.src.rpm I made sure it builds in mock, and got rid of most of the complaints, except for: E: imlib invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libimlib-gif.so libimlib-gif.so E: imlib invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libimlib-ps.so libimlib-ps.so E: imlib invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libimlib-tiff.so libimlib-tiff.so E: imlib invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libimlib-xpm.so libimlib-xpm.so E: imlib invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libimlib-png.so libimlib-png.so E: imlib invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libimlib-bmp.so libimlib-bmp.so E: imlib invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libimlib-ppm.so libimlib-ppm.so E: imlib invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libimlib-jpeg.so libimlib-jpeg.so Which would require moving the plugins and patching imlib to find them somewhere else. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194908] New: Review Request: perl-Event
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=194908 Summary: Review Request: perl-Event 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://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/perl-Event.spec SRPM URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/perl-Event-1.06-0.fc5.src.rpm Description: The Event module provide a central facility to watch for various types of events and invoke a callback when these events occur. The idea is to delay the handling of events so that they may be dispatched in priority order when it is safe for callbacks to execute. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194353] Review Request: gdk-pixbuf
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gdk-pixbuf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194353 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 15:59 EST --- New spec: http://people.redhat.com/mclasen/review/gdk-pixbuf.spec New srpm: http://people.redhat.com/mclasen/review/gdk-pixbuf-0.22.0-24.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 194888] Review Request: gfs2-utils
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gfs2-utils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194888 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO_REPORTER --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 16:29 EST --- Ok, rpmlint output: W: gfs2-utils incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1.0-0.FC6.1 0.1.0-1.fc6.1 - Should fix. W: gfs2-utils service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/gfs2 - We really don't want this on by default do we? W: gfs2-utils incoherent-init-script-name gfs2 - Can ignore. -- 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 194353] Review Request: gdk-pixbuf
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gdk-pixbuf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194353 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 16:35 EST --- Looks good, just an rpmlint warning about no docs in the -devel package. Are you already a packager in Extras, or do you need sponsorship (or are you looking for somebody to take over 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 194918] New: Review Request: kdegraphics: K Desktop Environment - Graphics Applications
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=194918 Summary: Review Request: kdegraphics: K Desktop Environment - Graphics Applications 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://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/SPECS/kdegraphics.spec SRPM URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/all/SRPMS.testing/kdegraphics-3.5.3-2.src.rpm Description: Graphics applications for the K Desktop Environment. Includes: kamera (digital camera support) kcoloredit (palette editor and color chooser) kdvi (displays TeX .dvi files) kfax (displays faxfiles) kghostview (displays postscript files) kiconedit (icon editor) kooka (scanner application) kpdf (displays PDF files) kruler (screen ruler and color measurement tool) ksnapshot (screen capture utility) kuickshow (quick picture viewer) kview (image viewer for GIF, JPEG, TIFF, etc. %changelog * Mon Jun 12 2006 Rex Dieter rexdieter[AT]users.sf.net 7:3.5.3-2 - %%doc: AUTHORS COPYING README, app docs (README, TODO, etc...) - follow icon spec - fc5+: BR: poppler-devel libXxf86vm-devel - BR: jasper-devel OpenEXR-devel - Obsoletes/Provides: kolorpaint - Requires: ghostscript-fonts (kpdf) - drop unecessary kpdf-xft patch4. * Sat Jun 03 2006 Than Ngo [EMAIL PROTECTED] 7:3.5.3-1 - update to 3.5.3 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194920] New: Review Request: coolkey
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=194920 Summary: Review Request: coolkey Product: Fedora Core Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://directory.fedora.redhat.com/built/rpm_review/rrelyea/coolkey.spec SRPM URL: http://directory.fedora.redhat.com/built/rpm_review/rrelyea/coolkey-1.0.0-1.src.rpm Description: CoolKey PKCS #11 module. This package will be needed by smart card login and ESC. Notes on this package: This package is a PKCS #11 module, and not a normal 'link against it' library. PKCS #11 is a fixed ABI which application load on the fly based on their configuration. The complaint about this shared library is the only rpmlint error. This package had a previous incarnation as a closed source package shipped with Red Hat Certificate System, thus the Obsoletes and Provides targets. bob -- 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 194888] Review Request: gfs2-utils
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gfs2-utils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194888 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO_REPORTER |ASSIGNED --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 17:13 EST --- - Fixed changelog - Fixed gfs2 service is not enabled by default. New SRPM http://people.redhat.com/cfeist/gfs2-utils-0.1.0-1.fc6.2.src.rpm New Spec file http://people.redhat.com/cfeist/gfs2-utils.spec -- 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 194920] Review Request: coolkey
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: coolkey https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194920 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||193187, 194551 -- 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 OtherBugsDependingO||194920 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 193187] Review Request: pcsc-lite ccid
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pcsc-lite ccid https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193187 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||194920 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 194923] New: new openmpi package
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=194923 Summary: new openmpi package Product: Fedora Core Version: devel Platform: All URL: http://people.redhat.com/~jvdias/openmpi/ OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Description of problem: OpenMPI is the replacement for LAM, and has been in Extras for a while now ( I am the maintainer ). There is a request to include OpenMPI in RHEL-5 also: bug 181573: replace LAM by OpenMPI openmpi currently co-exists with lam with no problems; users can select between the two MPI implementations with /sbin/alternatives, or the alternatives wrapper script /usr/sbin/mpi_alternatives. Please consider adding OpenMPI to the Fedora Core distribution - thanks. -- 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 194923] new openmpi package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: new openmpi package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194923 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |NEEDINFO_REPORTER --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 17:54 EST --- Why bring this into core instead of leaving it in Extras where it is, and let RHEL-5 pick it up from Extras? -- 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 194923] new openmpi package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: new openmpi package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194923 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 18:21 EST --- do we ship said cluster tools in Core? If not, that is no reason. Things have been provided in every Fedora release because they were in RHL and nobody thought to remove them due to not being necessary or not fitting into the goals of Fedora. Because it was there before doesn't cut it. -- 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 169345] Review Request: SEC - Simple Event Correlator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: SEC - Simple Event Correlator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=169345 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 18:44 EST --- I was going to package up SEC for inclusion in extras, but noticed that this had already been started. Since Didier has been having some trouble with basic spec layout, I offered to built a better spec for him to maintain. In order to fit better with redhat/fedora schemes, I've rewritten major portions of Didier's stuff, including the sysV init script and /etc/sysconfig/sec file (to support multiple instances), added more example files and reorganized the /etc/sec directory to make it more usable by a larger variety of people. Didier, your current spec assumes that people will be running solely against /var/log/messages and does not make it particularly easy to monitor other files (at the same time or otherwise). After a fair amount of thinking about this, I realized that the first thing the majority of people using SEC would do would be to tear out your default files. In this new version, everything is disabled by default and examples are placed in /etc/sec/examples along with /etc/sec/README and more documentation in /etc/sysconfig/etc to tell users what to do to set up SEC to fit their needs. I've also added a logrotate script and a few extra provides/requires (documented/commented in the spec). SPEC: http://rpm.forevermore.net/sec/sec.spec SRPM: http://rpm.forevermore.net/sec/sec-2.3.3-3.src.rpm I have yet to actually *use* SEC, so Didier is still probably the best one to maintain this, but I am happy to hang around for advice/etc. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 169345] Review Request: SEC - Simple Event Correlator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: SEC - Simple Event Correlator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=169345 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 18:56 EST --- Fixed a few rpmlint errors. not sure what to do about the rest: SPEC: http://rpm.forevermore.net/sec/sec.spec SRPM: http://rpm.forevermore.net/sec/sec-2.3.3-4.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 193109] Review Request: plotmm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: plotmm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193109 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 19:00 EST --- (In reply to comment #3) * rpmlint complaints: chitlesh(i386)[0]$rpmlint -i plotmm-0.1.2-2.i386.rpm W: plotmm one-line-command-in-%post /sbin/ldconfig You should use %post -p command instead of using: %post command It will avoid the fork of a shell interpreter to execute your command as well as allows rpm to automatically mark the dependency on your command. W: plotmm one-line-command-in-%postun /sbin/ldconfig You should use %postun -p command instead of using: %postun command It will avoid the fork of a shell interpreter to execute your command as well as allows rpm to automatically mark the dependency on your command. Use %post -p /sbin/ldconfig %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig to solve 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 194928] 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=194928 Summary: Review Request: main package name here Product: Fedora Core Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://directory.fedora.redhat.com/built/rpm_review/rrelyea/pam_pkcs11.spec SRPM URL: http://directory.fedora.redhat.com/built/rpm_review/rrelyea/pam_pkcs11-0.5.3-3.src.rpm Description: Smart card login module. -- 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 192540] Review Request: cal3d - A skeletal based 3-D character animation library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: cal3d - A skeletal based 3-D character animation library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192540 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 19:44 EST --- 0.11.0 is taking too long. I tried repackaging with the new 0.10 tarball, but this tarball was missing some documentation, so I am resorting back to the original tarball. The autoreconf stuff will be removed if/when 0.11 is released. Spec URL: http://tkmame.retrogames.com/fedora-extras/cal3d.spec SRPM URL: http://tkmame.retrogames.com/fedora-extras/cal3d-0.10.0-3.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 19:55 EST --- I don't know if this suggestion belongs in a package-review, but it'd be great if you could include an openbox.desktop file to be installed in /usr/share/xsessions (just like the fluxbox package does) so openbox can be selected from the Sessions list in GDM, instead of having to edit who knows what file by hand. By the way, I'm glad you're going to unorphan this package. I love Openbox :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191507] Review Request: wifi-radar
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: wifi-radar https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191507 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 21:26 EST --- New package looks good, all of the blockers resolved or explained. 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 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 22:12 EST --- id also say a gdm entry is necassery. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
