[Bug 189322] Review Request: rosegarden4
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: rosegarden4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189322 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-15 02:16 EST --- Alright, so I've run into a problem on the timing front. On my x86_64 system, using snd-rtctimer will cause a total system lockup within seconds, when the ALSA sequencer is used. So snd-rtctimer does in fact still not get along with SMP, and it appears simply *running* an SMP kernel, even on a UP system, will cause lockups with snd-rtctimer. (x86_64 always runs with an SMP kernel, as it apparently doesn't suffer the speed hit i386 does when running an SMP kernel on UP systems.) This happens with any ALSA MIDI app, not just Rosegarden. However, I'm not sure if its something I did, but somehow Rosegarden is causing snd-rtctimer to be loaded when it starts up, even if I take it out of my modprobe.conf. And it seems to insist on using it even if I tell it not to. I had to blacklist snd-rtctimer in modprobe.conf to keep my system from locking up. Since I approved dssi, I'll get an updated rosegarden package up tomorrow hopefully. (Summer session just started and I'm taking a few classes. 3 months worth of class mashed into one month...) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-06-15 02:32 EST --- (In reply to comment #15) The packaging guidelines are nearing completion now In short... - if the final code doesn't include any .so files, you have to make it noarch - this removes the libdir problems (if it has a configure script, either %define the target as sparc86x or add --target=sparc86x after the configure call) Is this el weirdo --target stuff to remove the problem with %configure complaining about noarch-redhat being an unknown target? And is this considered a better fix then the fix posted to f-e-l for this (which patches configure and the runs autoreconf)? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-06-15 02:45 EST ---
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-11 11:04 EST ---
NEEDSWORK
- Brew doesn't support %{?dist} tag anymore, so this will not evaluate when
built.
- BuildRequires: automake
- %makeinstall no longer acceptable according to guidelines. Try make install
DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT instead.
Question
- Any way to make this so that we don't have to use autotools to build it? This
is fragile and ugly.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192912] Review Request: paps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: paps
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192912
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-15 02:55 EST ---
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-11 21:27 EST ---
(In reply to comment #3)
NEEDSWORK
- Brew doesn't support %{?dist} tag anymore, so this will not evaluate when
built.
Yes, I was aware of this and was about to modify it before next build.
- BuildRequires: automake
- %makeinstall no longer acceptable according to guidelines. Try make
install
DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT instead.
Ok, I'll update.
Question
- Any way to make this so that we don't have to use autotools to build it?
This
is fragile and ugly.
Hm, I could contain the chunks of Makefile.in in a patch though, it may causes
an issue that is hard to maintain 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 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] 2006-06-15 02:58 EST --- --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-11 21:38 EST --- Question - Any way to make this so that we don't have to use autotools to build it? This is fragile and ugly. Hm, I could contain the chunks of Makefile.in in a patch though, it may causes an issue that is hard to maintain it. Its really your choice. Which ever method you feel more comfortable supporting. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192912] Review Request: paps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: paps https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192912 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-15 02:59 EST --- --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-11 23:13 EST --- Ok, updated in Extras CVS, except dist tag. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2006-06-15 03:03 EST --- --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-11 23:49 EST --- Just a note that most (if not all) of the code in libpaps.c is essentially deprecated now that cairo has PS/PDF backends being enabled for FC6. It should be a matter of a weekend's work to get someone write a paps-like a2ps replacement using pangocairo. This can be fixed later of course, and the upstream author already knows about this and may in fact do it himself. My other concern with paps as it stands now is its command line interface that we have to keep if we push it into Core. Instead of --fontscale and --family for example, it should have a single --font that takes a Pango font description. Such a tool can be included in Pango upstream in fact. If there's no strong reason for having paps or a similar tool in Core for FC6, I suggest postponing this and working on the replacement tool. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192912] Review Request: paps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: paps https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192912 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-15 03:05 EST --- --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 01:03 EST --- (In reply to comment #7) Just a note that most (if not all) of the code in libpaps.c is essentially deprecated now that cairo has PS/PDF backends being enabled for FC6. It should be a matter of a weekend's work to get someone write a paps-like a2ps replacement using pangocairo. This can be fixed later of course, and the upstream author already knows about this and may in fact do it himself. Yes, upstream is aware of that. My other concern with paps as it stands now is its command line interface that we have to keep if we push it into Core. Instead of --fontscale and --family for example, it should have a single --font that takes a Pango font description. It sounds good. let me push it to upstream then. Such a tool can be included in Pango upstream in fact. Not as an example? it would be nice if it will continues to be maintained. If there's no strong reason for having paps or a similar tool in Core for FC6, I suggest postponing this and working on the replacement tool. We are focusing to improve the CIJK handling of the text printing and paps was a better candidate at that time - this was being developed since PS/PDF backend for cairo was experimental or before that, which wasn't relied on - We have decided to work on paps because it may be close to become successful at RHEL5 timeframe so that the improvement of CIJK text printing is our goal for RHEL5. plus, we have no enough time to make an another replacement from scratch so that FC6t1 will be coming soon. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2006-06-15 03:07 EST --- --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 01:46 EST --- My other concern with paps as it stands now is its command line interface that we have to keep if we push it into Core. Instead of --fontscale and --family for example, it should have a single --font that takes a Pango font description. It sounds good. let me push it to upstream then. Ok good. While communicating with upstream, suggest that he ports paps to pangocairo over the weekend, and we may actually have it next week :-). Such a tool can be included in Pango upstream in fact. Not as an example? it would be nice if it will continues to be maintained. Yeah, I'm already trying to push the pango-view tool as a stable maintained tool (instead of an example), and it's been packaged in pango-devel for a while now. I also have wanted to add PS/PDF output support to it for a while. Main thing that needs to be done before pango-view can be used like paps is to make it break text into paragraphs before laying out (for performance reasons.) I'm actually not sure that paps does that. But anyway, I probably will get to doing that sooner or later, but can't make any promise at this point. If there's no strong reason for having paps or a similar tool in Core for FC6, I suggest postponing this and working on the replacement tool. We are focusing to improve the CIJK handling of the text printing and paps was a better candidate at that time - this was being developed since PS/PDF backend for cairo was experimental or before that, which wasn't relied on - We have decided to work on paps because it may be close to become successful at RHEL5 timeframe so that the improvement of CIJK text printing is our goal for RHEL5. plus, we have no enough time to make an another replacement from scratch so that FC6t1 will be coming soon. Ok, what about having a simple shell script called u2ps shipped and advertised in Core with a documented command line interface, and make it call paps as the implementation for now, but leave it open to switch to pango-view later on... The interface should be quite simple, a cat-like tool with the following options: --landscape --portrait (Default) --font (--font-size, --font-family, ...?) --margin --margin-left --margin-right --margin-top --margin-bottom --header=[TEXT] --footer=[TEXT] That should be enough for now, and (except for footer?) paps supports the rest already, with different namings possibly. Another thing that should work in u2ps but is not currently working in paps is setting default paper size based on LC_PAPER. We can make the wrapper figure out the paper and pass it to paps for now, and use it to set page size later with pango-view. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[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] 2006-06-15 03:09 EST --- --- 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 194612] Review Request: pstoedit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pstoedit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194612 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-15 03:23 EST --- There are .so files in /usr/lib/pstoedit/. Are these dlopened 'internal' libraries? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 185531] Review Request: fcron, a task scheduler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: fcron, a task scheduler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185531 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-15 03:30 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 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] 2006-06-15 03:51 EST --- --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 10:35 EST --- Now needs libtool and doxygen build requirements. E: paps zero-length /usr/share/doc/paps-0.6.6/NEWS -- 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 194027] Review Request: metisse - Experimental X desktop with OpenGL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: metisse - Experimental X desktop with OpenGL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194027 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-15 04:29 EST --- (In reply to comment #9) This is what I have in my /etc/mock/fedora-5-x86_64-core.cfg file, you could probably just change x86_64 to i386 if you want to build for that arch. I'm surprised they haven't updated these yet. I have the same configuration and still got the same issue I posted earlier with mock. For some reason, metisse won't compile as if the condition found on the spec file will move to '4' by default. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191239] Review Request: qjackctl - Qt based JACK control application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: qjackctl - Qt based JACK control application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191239
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-15 05:02 EST ---
Hi,
While browsing the wiki I stumbled over the Music and Media Production SIG,
Since I've always thought that it would be a great idea to integrate planetccrma
and FE I must say that I'm very happy to see this is happening now. I must say
though that I myself sofar have had no need for planetccrma packages.
Well thats enough introduction I guess. The reason I'm introducing myself is
because after stumbling over the SIG I decided to read the fedora-music-list
archives. There I read that you (Fernando) need a sponsor and I can sponsor.
So I'll (quickly) redo Callum's Review (the rules say I must do so as a sponsor)
and if I agree that this package is approve-able you can create an account in
the accounts system and I'll sponsor you.
Some remarks about the above discussion:
(In reply to comment #2)
# distros with 2.4.x kernels should use jackstart as the default
%{?fc1:%define usejackstart 1}
%{?rh9:%define usejackstart 1}
this define can go since extras doesn't go that far back
I erased this but I was hoping I would not have to keep separate spec files
for
Planet CCRMA and Fedora Extras (it does not really hurt to have it there). Oh
well, just a little bit more extra pain I guess...
You can keep a single specfile if you want, as long as things don't become too
ugly / too much of a kludge. I personally believe that the above 2 lines arenot
too ugly.
(In reply to comment #14)
And for what its worth, I queried FESCo on the make/rm macro thing. The
response
was choose either, just be consistent.
Yes, thats what I've always understood (and used as a criteria during reviews)
too.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191239] Review Request: qjackctl - Qt based JACK control application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: qjackctl - Qt based JACK control application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191239
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-15 05:55 EST ---
Unfortunatly I cannot do a proper review because the srpm link gives a 404
error,
here are some initial MUST fix items from looking at the spec-file:
* %makeinstall is broken (yeah I know, someone should fix it) please use:
make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT instead. (Or make that %{__make} ..)
* Under %files I see %{_datadir}/icons/qjackctl.png, that is not according to
the
freedesktop.org icon standard, it should go under:
%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps
Where 32x32 is the size of the icon, please do ls /usr/share/icons/hicolor/
to see the available valid sizes, if the icon doesn't match any pick the
closest.
* Once the icon is in the proper case you must add %post(un) script to update
the icon-cache see:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ScriptletSnippets#head-fc74f078205565f961f6d836b77c3428619c689d
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191239] Review Request: qjackctl - Qt based JACK control application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: qjackctl - Qt based JACK control application https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191239 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-15 06:00 EST --- I've got the srpm now, all I needed todo was change the 4.0 release in the URL to just 4 . -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191239] Review Request: qjackctl - Qt based JACK control application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: qjackctl - Qt based JACK control application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191239
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-15 06:15 EST ---
MUST:
=
* rpmlint output is clean
* Package and spec file named appropriately
* Packaged according to packaging guidelines
* License (GPL) ok, license file included
* spec file is legible and in Am. English.
* Source matches upstream
* Compiles and builds on devel-i386
* BR: ok
* No locales
* No shared libraries
* Not relocatable
* Package owns / or requires all dirs
* No duplicate files Permissions ok
* %clean macro usage OK
* Contains code only
* %doc does not affect runtime, and isn't large enough to warrent a sub package
* no -devel package needed, no libs / .la files.
* .desktop file present and properly installed
MUST fix:
=
* %makeinstall is broken (yeah I know, someone should fix it) please use:
make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT instead. (Or make that %{__make} ..)
* Under %files I see %{_datadir}/icons/qjackctl.png, that is not according to
the
freedesktop.org icon standard, it should go under:
%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps
Where 32x32 is the size of the icon, please do ls /usr/share/icons/hicolor/
to see the available valid sizes, if the icon doesn't match any pick the
closest.
* Once the icon is in the proper case you must add %post(un) script to update
the icon-cache see:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ScriptletSnippets#head-fc74f078205565f961f6d836b77c3428619c689d
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194612] Review Request: pstoedit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pstoedit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194612 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-15 06:47 EST --- Right. I had initially put them in the devel package, but that doesn't work. They're not automatically linked into the pstoedit executable, but rather loaded internally by pstoedit init code (see src/dynload.cpp). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-06-15 07:17 EST --- Yes, the new packages loads fine -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189884] Review Request: LASH Audio Session Handler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: LASH Audio Session Handler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189884
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-15 07:38 EST ---
I'm sponsering Nando from CCNRMA and attempting to help him to get a bit upto
steam, since one of his packages needs fluidsynth which in turn needs this one
I'm reviewing this one. Callum I hope you don't mind.
MUST:
=
0 rpmlint output is:
W: lash incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.4.0-2 0.5.1-2
W: lash devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/pkgconfig/lash-1.0.pc
E: lash zero-length /usr/share/doc/lash-0.5.1/docs/html-manual-stamp
E: lash postin-without-ldconfig /usr/lib/liblash.so.2.0.0
E: lash library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib/liblash.so.2.0.0
E: lash zero-length /usr/share/doc/lash-0.5.1/docs/texinfo.tex
W: lash-devel no-documentation
These all must be fixed except for the last Warning which can be ignored
* Package and spec file named appropriately
* Packaged according to packaging guidelines
* License (GPL) ok, license file included
* spec file is legible and in Am. English.
* Source matches upstream
* Compiles and builds on devel-i386
0 BR: ok (see below)
* No locales
0 shared libraries but no ldconfig, see MUST fix (and rpmlint output).
* Not relocatable
* Package owns / or requires all dirs
* No duplicate files Permissions ok
* %clean macro usage OK
* Contains code only
* %doc does not affect runtime, and isn't large enough to warrent a sub package
0 -devel as needed, .pc file must be moved to -devel
0 gui .desktop files required Fix please.
MUST fix:
=
* the following rpmlint output:
W: lash incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.4.0-2 0.5.1-2
W: lash devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/pkgconfig/lash-1.0.pc
E: lash zero-length /usr/share/doc/lash-0.5.1/docs/html-manual-stamp
E: lash postin-without-ldconfig /usr/lib/liblash.so.2.0.0
E: lash library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib/liblash.so.2.0.0
E: lash zero-length /usr/share/doc/lash-0.5.1/docs/texinfo.tex
* Redundant BuildRequires: libtermcap-devel (already implied by readline-devel
Please remove the libtermcap-devel BR.
* This can't be right can it? :
BuildRequires: gtk+-devel, gtk2-devel
Usually a package uses either gtk+ (gtk1) or gtk2, not both.
Judging from the rpm -q --requires lash output it uses gtk2 and thus gtk+-devel
can be dropped.
* Lash contains gtk apps which are gui apps and should properly install
.desktop files for this, see:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ScriptletSnippets#head-fc74f078205565f961f6d836b77c3428619c689d
for info on howto properly install .desktop files.
* The lash_XXpx.png icons are installed /usr/share/lash/icons that is not
according to the freedesktop.org icon standard, it should go under:
%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps
Where 32x32 is the size of the icon, the ixons then should be named just
lash.png (not lash_XXpx.png. Please do ls /usr/share/icons/hicolor/
to see the available valid sizes, if the icon doesn't match any pick the
closest. I think lash doesn't use the other format icons in that case they
should be dropped in %doc and the /usr/share/lash/icons dir should be removed
(or atleast not packaged).
* Once the icon is in the proper case you must add %post(un) script to update
the icon-cache see:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ScriptletSnippets#head-fc74f078205565f961f6d836b77c3428619c689d
* The dtd file should be installed under /usr/share/xml/lash/dtds instead of
under /usr/share/lash/dtds. Notice that after these changes there is no more
use of /usr/share/lash needed!
* The: Requires: jack-audio-connection-kit-devel alsa-lib-devel
for the devel package should be above %description, now its part of the
description:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ rpm -qi lash-devel
Name: lash-devel Relocations: (not relocatable)
Version : 0.5.1 Vendor: (none)
Release : 2 Build Date: Thu 15 Jun 2006 12:26:42
PM CEST
Install Date: Thu 15 Jun 2006 12:31:44 PM CEST Build Host:
guest-dhcp-048.si.hhs.nl
Group : Development/Libraries Source RPM: lash-0.5.1-2.src.rpm
Size: 25430License: GPL
Signature : (none)
URL : http://www.nongnu.org/lash/
Summary : Development files for LASH
Description :
Development files for the LASH library.
Requires:
[Bug 189886] Review Request: FluidSynth - Real-time software synthesizer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: FluidSynth - Real-time software synthesizer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189886
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-15 07:47 EST ---
MUST:
=
0 rpmlint output is:
E: fluidsynth obsolete-not-provided iiwusynth
E: libfluidsynth-devel obsolete-not-provided libiiwusynth-devel
These both must be fixed.
* Package and spec file named appropriately
* Packaged according to packaging guidelines
0 License (LGPL) ok, but license file not included!
* spec file is legible and in Am. English.
* Source matches upstream
* Compiles and builds on devel-i386
* BR: ok
* No locales
* shared libraries, ldconfig properly ran
* Not relocatable
* Package owns / or requires all dirs (with some strangeness see Must fix below)
* No duplicate files Permissions ok
* %clean macro usage OK
* Contains code only
0 no %doc
* -devel package as needed
0 .la files packaged, bad!
* no gui - no .desktop file required
MUST fix:
=
* Alphanumeric parts of the version should be in the Release field, as per:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines
Then you can drop the -n fluidsynth-1.0.7 to %setup too
* Dont use %package -n lib%{name} thats very Debian afaik (allmost) all Fedora
package use %package libs same goes for the devel package.
* The following rpmlint output:
E: fluidsynth obsolete-not-provided iiwusynth
E: libfluidsynth-devel obsolete-not-provided libiiwusynth-devel
* Don't package .la files, remove them under %install or %exclude them in %files
* Add a %doc including atleast COPYING, but mosty likely also other candidates
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191538] Review Request: qsynth - Qt based Fluidsynth GUI front end
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: qsynth - Qt based Fluidsynth GUI front end
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191538
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-15 08:18 EST ---
MUST:
=
* rpmlint output is:
W: qsynth no-version-in-last-changelog
W: qsynth-debuginfo no-version-in-last-changelog
These both must be fixed.
* Package and spec file named appropriately
* Packaged according to packaging guidelines
* License (GPL) ok, license file included
* spec file is legible and in Am. English.
* Source matches upstream
* Compiles and builds on devel-i386
* BR: ok
* No locales
* No shared libraries
* Not relocatable
* Package owns / or requires all dirs
* No duplicate files Permissions ok
* %clean macro usage OK
* Contains code only
* %doc does not affect runtime, and isn't large enough to warrent a sub package
* no -devel package needed, no libs / .la files.
* .desktop file as required and properly installed
MUST fix:
=
* rpmlint output is:
W: qsynth no-version-in-last-changelog
W: qsynth-debuginfo no-version-in-last-changelog
These both must be fixed.
* Source0: http://dl.sf.net/qsynth/qsynth-%{version}.tar.gz
Must be: Source0: http://dl.sf.net/sourceforge/qsynth/qsynth-%{version}.tar.gz
* %makeinstall is broken (yeah I know, someone should fix it) please use:
make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT instead. (Or make that %{__make} ..)
* Under %files I see %{_datadir}/icons/qsynth.png, that is not according to the
freedesktop.org icon standard, it should go under:
%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps
Where 32x32 is the size of the icon, please do ls /usr/share/icons/hicolor/
to see the available valid sizes, if the icon doesn't match any pick the
closest.
* Once the icon is in the proper case you must add %post(un) script to update
the icon-cache see:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ScriptletSnippets#head-fc74f078205565f961f6d836b77c3428619c689d
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-06-15 08:44 EST --- lat-1.0.5-3 available here: http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/lat/ * Thu Jun 15 2006 Paul Howarth [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 1.0.5-3 - Pure C# apps should be noarch - Swap one set of horrible mono hacks for another -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194578] 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=194578 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn|188267 |188268 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-15 08:59 EST --- Approved. Added wireshark to dist-fc6, blocked ethereal. Updateding comps (if necessary) -- 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 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] 2006-06-15 09:02 EST --- Does the app install natively to %_datadir or is this something that has been added in as discussion was surrounding if mono app should be in %_libdir or %_datadir? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-06-15 09:13 EST --- (In reply to comment #19) Does the app install natively to %_datadir or is this something that has been added in as discussion was surrounding if mono app should be in %_libdir or %_datadir? It installs natively to /usr/lib, which from my reading of Comment #17 was the least-wrong place for it to be, so I haven't tried forcing it to go anywhere else. I don't have an x86_64 box to test this on though, so I'm not sure what will happen there. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195420] Review Request: clips - Tools for developing expert systems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: clips - Tools for developing expert systems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195420 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-15 09:25 EST --- *** Bug 195421 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-06-15 09:33 EST ---
Fails to build on x86_64
File not found: /var/tmp/lat-1.0.5-3-root-paul/usr/lib64/lat
It looks like in files mono apps will need /usr/lib to be explicitly stated.
You also need to add in
%define debug_package %{nil}
To remove the debug 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 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] 2006-06-15 09:36 EST ---
(In reply to comment #21)
Fails to build on x86_64
File not found: /var/tmp/lat-1.0.5-3-root-paul/usr/lib64/lat
It looks like in files mono apps will need /usr/lib to be explicitly stated.
Yes, I'll change that.
You also need to add in
%define debug_package %{nil}
To remove the debug package
You got a debuginfo package? Building on i386 I didn't get one after changing
BuildArch: to noarch. That's why I removed the %define debug_package %{nil}
that was there previously.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-06-15 09:37 EST --- Created an attachment (id=130974) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=130974action=view) diff file for spec Diff file - this now builds happily under x86_64 as well as x86 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-06-15 09:53 EST --- Hmm, This is getting really ugly, so even though the package is: BuildArch: noarch When building with rpmbuild on x86_64 %libdir still is /usr/lib64 ?? I just confirmed this on my own x86_64 system. So that means that %libdir as passed to configure will also be /usr/lib64, appearantly lat doesn't honor this bot others do, so it looks like that for pure mono apps we need: BuildArch: noarch +libdir hack +target hack Nice :| Also notice that all the hammer buildsys systems are x86_64 machines! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194578] 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=194578 [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 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] 2006-06-15 10:06 EST --- Surely though the noarch should behave the same irrespective of the package being built (/usr/lib for all platforms). If it's not behaving the same then that indicates it being a bug elsewhere. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-06-15 10:13 EST --- Can one of you guys confirm whether or not you're getting a debuginfo package when building the noarch package on x86_64 (or anywhere else really)? I'm not getting one on i386. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-06-15 10:15 EST --- #27 - my mistake, mock was being silly at this end #26 - I'll file one 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 195484] New: Review Request: kdenetwork: K Desktop Environment - Network 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=195484 Summary: Review Request: kdenetwork: K Desktop Environment - Network 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/kdenetwork.spec SRPM URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/all/SRPMS.testing/kdenetwork-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 (kuickshow) - BR: freeglut-devel (kpovmodeler) - 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 195485] 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=195485 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 (kuickshow) - BR: freeglut-devel (kpovmodeler) - 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 195486] New: Review Request: kdenetwork: K Desktop Environment - Network 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=195486
Summary: Review Request: kdenetwork: K Desktop Environment -
Network 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/kdenetwork.spec
SRPM URL:
http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/all/SRPMS.testing/kdenetwork-3.5.3-3.src.rpm
Description:
Graphics applications for the K Desktop Environment.
Networking applications, including:
* kdict: graphical client for the DICT protocol.
* kget: downloader manager.
* kio_lan: lan browsing kio slave.
* knewsticker: RDF newsticker applet
* kopete: chat client (requires qca-tls for optional jabber/ssl support)
* kpf: public fileserver applet
* kppp: dialer and front end for pppd
* krdc: a client for Desktop Sharing and other VNC servers (requires rdesktop)
* krfb: Desktop Sharing server, allow others to access your desktop via VNC
* ksirc: IRC client
* ktalkd: talk daemon
* lisa: lan information server
%changelog
* Tue Jun 13 2006 Rex Dieter rexdieter[AT]users.sf.net 7:3.5.3-3
- /lib/security - %{_lib}/security (though it's not really used atm)
- comment out unused patches (2,3)
* Fri Jun 09 2006 Rex Dieter rexdieter[AT]users.sf.net 7:3.5.3-2
- --enable-sametime-plugin, BR: libmeanwhile0-devel
- --enable-slp, BR: openslp-devel
- --with-xmms, BR: xmms-devel
- BR: libxml2 libxslt
- %%doc: AUTHORS COPYING README, app docs (README, TODO, etc...)
- update %%description
- follow icon spec
- don't use usermode(gtk) for kppp (allows users to have separate profiles)
- Requires(hint): rdesktop (krdc)
- Obsoletes/Provides: kopete
- Requires(hint): qca-tls (jabber/tls support for kopete)
* Mon Jun 05 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 195484] Review Request: kdenetwork: K Desktop Environment - Network 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: kdenetwork: K Desktop Environment - Network Applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195484 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||DUPLICATE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-15 10:18 EST --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 195486 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195486] Review Request: kdenetwork: K Desktop Environment - Network 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: kdenetwork: K Desktop Environment - Network Applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195486 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-15 10:18 EST --- *** Bug 195484 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-06-15 10:24 EST --- #28 - the BZ reference for the rpmbuild bug is #195487 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-06-15 10:28 EST --- FYI I'm not getting a debuginfo package when building the noarch version of lat on x86_64. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2006-06-15 10:36 EST ---
lat-1.0.5-4 available here:
http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/lat/
* Thu Jun 15 2006 Paul Howarth [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 1.0.5-4
- Use %%{_prefix}/lib rather than %%{_libdir}, needed for 64-bit builds
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194612] Review Request: pstoedit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pstoedit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194612 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-15 10:47 EST --- Indeed they seem to qualify as internal dlopened libraries. It is somehow strange that upstream don't simply link them, it would be cleaner, but it isn't really problematic. That was the last issue I found, so now for the formal review: * rpmlint is silent * follow naming guidelines * licence is GPL and included * source match upstream 13f24cb070da3f6af82ed84f4e53f049 * build on FC5 * buildrequires seem right, although I haven't built in mock * ldconfig is run * creates the directory it owns, except /usr/share/aclocal/. Not a big deal, in my opinion, as there are other packages that do that. I am not sure but it seems that there were some discussions about that, but I can't recall the result. I don't consider that a blocker but you may want to raise the issue on the extras list * things in -devel are right. There are .so in the main package, but these are dlopened libraries 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 194420] Review Request: mlton, an optimizing compiler for Standard ML
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: mlton, an optimizing compiler for Standard ML
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194420
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-15 11:07 EST ---
I try to recall what I wrote in the comment that disappeared.
1. Possible convert mllex.ps.gz and mlyacc.ps.gz to .pdf using ps2pdf.
This would make the doc more consistent. The pdf are not much larger
than ps.gz.
2. /usr/lib/mlton/sml/ckit-lib/regression should probably removed
3. There are several files in subdirectories of /usr/lib/mlton/sml
that properly belong in the doc.
For example the README*, BUGS and doc in /usr/lib/mlton/sml/ckit-lib
could be moved to %{_docdir}/%{name}-version}/ckit-lib
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 185531] Review Request: fcron, a task scheduler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: fcron, a task scheduler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185531
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-15 11:09 EST ---
We're almost there, still 3 things.
- First calling README the file to read for enabling fcron to start at
boot time is in my opinion misleading, it should be called along
README.rpm or REAME.fedora (et pareil pour le LISEZMOI).
- I have a proposal for the description:
WARNING: fcron isn't started automatically on boot after
installation. You can use system-config-services to enable
autoamtic fcron startup on boot, or use chkconfig as explained
in the %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/REAME.rpm file.
Je te fais confiance pour la traduction en francais...
- it may be nice to explain in README.rpm how to do the same than
with crond/anacron. I believe it goes along installing the crontabs
rpm and call
fcrontab /etc/crontab
each time this file is modified.
Those minor issues may be fixed later.
Full review:
* rpmlint output is
setgid/setuid bits required for the fcron user to send signal to
the fcrond process, and for any user to modify the fcrontabs
as user fcron, and permissions for the fcron user:
E: fcron non-standard-uid /usr/bin/fcrontab fcron
E: fcron non-standard-gid /usr/bin/fcrontab fcron
E: fcron setuid-gid-binary /usr/bin/fcrontab fcron fcron 06755
E: fcron non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/fcrontab 06755
E: fcron non-standard-uid /var/spool/fcron fcron
E: fcron non-standard-gid /var/spool/fcron fcron
E: fcron non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/fcron 0770
E: fcron non-standard-gid /usr/bin/fcronsighup fcron
E: fcron setuid-binary /usr/bin/fcronsighup root 04754
E: fcron non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/fcronsighup 04754
Needed to remove the fcron user:
W: fcron dangerous-command-in-%postun userdel
rpmlint bug (reported, fixed in devel):
E: fcron incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/fcron ;
* follows naming guidelines
* licence is GPL and included in %doc
* spec is legible
* md5sum match: 8e5dcb3a646c11294294895954ef0a48
* no duplicate files in %file
* permissions set properly, only doc files in %doc
* own all directories it needs (/var/spool/fcron/)
* no lib included
I'll ask for reviews on the mailing list since this is an important
package with security implication, which could maybe replace
crond/anacron at some point.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2006-06-15 11:10 EST --- There are some warnings in the build log that could be reported upstream: fcron.c: In function 'get_lock': fcron.c:255: warning: ignoring return value of 'fscanf', declared with attribute warn_unused_result fcron.c:265: warning: ignoring return value of 'ftruncate', declared with attribute warn_unused_result socket.c: In function 'check_socket': socket.c:773: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 3 of 'accept' differ in signedness fcronsighup.c: In function 'read_pid': fcronsighup.c:85: warning: ignoring return value of 'fscanf', declared with attribute warn_unused_result fcrondyn.c: In function 'talk_fcron': fcrondyn.c:521: warning: ignoring return value of 'write', declared with attribute warn_unused_result -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194612] Review Request: pstoedit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pstoedit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194612 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-15 11:21 EST --- (In reply to comment #3) release later when plotutils is available (I'll work on it). If you submit a package for ming, I'll review it. I'm not in a hurry to package ming since it evolves rapidly and is a bit beta. As long as nobody ask explicitly for it I'll refrain... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 185531] Review Request: fcron, a task scheduler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: fcron, a task scheduler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185531 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-15 11:41 EST --- Apart from a minor spelling issue, it is in good shape for inclusion in extras, in my opinion. So I'll wait a few days to let others have a look, like I said on the mailing list and then approve it if there is no issues risen. No need to resubmit something with the spelling fixed. The spelling issue is in README.Fedora, it could be, in my opinion (although my proposal is still a bit ugly :-/): You can use crontabs provided by the Fedora package crontabs, fcron knows how to deal with this format. As superuser, enter the following command: fcrontab /etc/crontab This should be done everytime the file is modified. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194612] Review Request: pstoedit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pstoedit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194612 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194612] Review Request: pstoedit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pstoedit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194612 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-15 11:50 EST --- Patrice, many thanks for your review. buildrequires seem right, although I haven't built in mock I did. Builds cleanly for FC-4, FC-5 and devel. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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
OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-15 12:21 EST ---
The latest rpmlint output:
W: ganglia-devel no-dependency-on ganglia
W: ganglia-devel no-documentation
E: ganglia-gmetad non-standard-uid /var/lib/ganglia/rrds ganglia
E: ganglia-gmetad non-standard-gid /var/lib/ganglia/rrds ganglia
W: ganglia-gmetad incoherent-init-script-name gmetad
W: ganglia-gmond incoherent-init-script-name gmond
All of which are OK.
Is the license really BSD? It doesn't seem to have the no-endorsement clause.
I'd just call it MIT but I'll leave it up to you.
Review:
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is correct.
? license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible. License text included in package.
* source files match upstream:
c48320a112db20e8372ae8e89d97583e ganglia-3.0.3.tar.gz
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* package builds in mock (x86_64, development).
* rpmlint has only ignorable complaints.
* final provides and requires are sane:
ganglia-devel-3.0.3-7.fc6.x86_64.rpm
libganglia-3.0.3.so.0()(64bit)
ganglia-devel = 3.0.3-7.fc6
=
/bin/sh
/sbin/ldconfig
libganglia-3.0.3.so.0()(64bit)
ganglia-gmetad-3.0.3-7.fc6.x86_64.rpm
config(ganglia-gmetad) = 3.0.3-7.fc6
ganglia-gmetad = 3.0.3-7.fc6
=
/bin/sh
config(ganglia-gmetad) = 3.0.3-7.fc6
librrd.so.2()(64bit)
ganglia-gmond-3.0.3-7.fc6.x86_64.rpm
config(ganglia-gmond) = 3.0.3-7.fc6
ganglia-gmond = 3.0.3-7.fc6
=
/bin/sh
config(ganglia-gmond) = 3.0.3-7.fc6
ganglia-web-3.0.3-7.fc6.x86_64.rpm
config(ganglia-web) = 3.0.3-7.fc6
ganglia-web = 3.0.3-7.fc6
=
config(ganglia-web) = 3.0.3-7.fc6
ganglia-gmetad = 3.0.3
rrdtool
* shared libraries are present; ldconfig is called properly.
* package is not relocatable.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.
* scriptlets present (ldconfig); all OK.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* headers present in -devel package.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.
* not a GUI app.
* web app; files are in /usr/share/%{name}
APPROVED; I'll let you decide what the license tag should be.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195421] Review Request: clips - Tools for developing expert systems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: clips - Tools for developing expert systems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195421 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-15 13:02 EST --- Missing BuildReq: libXt-devel, libXaw-devel, maybe others This is on FC5, on FC6 these may possibly be sucked in xorg-x11-proto-devel. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195420] Review Request: clips - Tools for developing expert systems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: clips - Tools for developing expert systems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195420 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-15 13:03 EST --- Missing BuildReq: libXt-devel, libXaw-devel, maybe others This is on FC5, on FC6 these may possibly be sucked in xorg-x11-proto-devel. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189184] Review Request: perl-Email-Valid - check validity of email addresses
Please 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-Email-Valid - check validity of email addresses https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189184 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-15 13:17 EST --- Version 0.172 is available in CPAN (http://search.cpan.org/dist/Email-Valid/) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 171289] Review Request: dirmngr: Client for Managing/Downloading CRLs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: dirmngr: Client for Managing/Downloading CRLs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=171289 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-15 13:41 EST --- Adding update lost from bugzilla crash... Spec Name or Url: http://apt.kde-redhat.org/apt/kde-redhat/SPECS/dirmngr-0.9.3-1.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://apt.kde-redhat.org/apt/kde-redhat/all/SRPMS.stable/dirmngr-0.9.3-1.src.rpm %changelog * Tue May 16 2006 Rex Dieter rexdieter[AT]users.sf.net 0.9.3-1 - 0.9.3 -- 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 195420] Review Request: clips - Tools for developing expert systems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: clips - Tools for developing expert systems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195420 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-15 13:45 EST --- Others includes libXext-devel and libXmu-devel. Built against devel, probably not going to avoid these. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 182254] Review Request: SS5
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: SS5 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=182254 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-15 13:54 EST --- You are now on step 10 of the new contributor process, get a Fedora account. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Contributors Apply for cvsextras, I'll sponsor. There is a cvs FAQ with example commands. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/UsingCvsFaq -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187325] Review Request: jaws
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jaws https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187325 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-15 14:08 EST --- Any progress with this package? I know it sat for a couple of months without a review, and for that I apologize. If you're no longer interested in packaging it, please let us know. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191200] Review Request: lvm2-cluster
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: lvm2-cluster https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191200 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-15 14:53 EST --- ooops, that was gfs-cluster I think. I was wrong, here is the missing comments: On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 06:54:20PM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: rpmlint is unhappy: # yum install rpmlint # man rpmlint No manual entry for rpmlint So the rpmlint package itself needs fixing to include a man page for a binary it installed! Hardly instills confidence. /usr/share/doc has nothing useful for it either. E: lvm2-cluster non-standard-executable-perm /usr/sbin/clvmd 0555 What's rpmlint complaining about? It's got the executable bits and it can't be written to by a non-root user. Some would argue 0111 would be better, but this is a distribution so there's little to gain from a security-by-obscurity argument as it's trivial for a user to get hold of a copy of the binary from elsewhere. - Ignoring. (rpmlint bug?) E: lvm2-cluster postin-without-ldconfig /usr/lib/liblvm2clusterlock.so.2.02 E: lvm2-cluster library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib/liblvm2clusterlock.so.2.02 OK: the packaging installation process doesn't run ldconfig automatically yet so it has to be included in every spec file that handles shared libraries. However, other packages look to have '%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig' and I've googled and searched the Fedora wiki and the new online book you mentioned, but as usual, I can't find documentation for what I need to know, viz. what '-p' does and whether you're meant to use it if there are other commands to run in the same section. For safety, opted for: %post /sbin/chkconfig --add clvmd /sbin/ldconfig %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig E: lvm2-cluster non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib/liblvm2clusterlock.so.2.02 0555 Puzzling: I thought linux wanted both the read and execute bits to be set these days on shared objects, not just the read bit (which is all that's required at the kernel level). - Ignoring. (rpmlint bug?) W: lvm2-cluster devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/liblvm2clusterlock.so Seems overkill to create a lvm2-cluster-devel package containing just one symlink? I don't spot other packages with shared libraries doing that. - Ignoring. W: lvm2-cluster no-reload-entry /etc/rc.d/init.d/clvmd The daemon doesn't support 'reload', so it would be misleading to offer that option in the script. Or should it give a message saying 'unsupported'? But I don't see other scripts doing that: they're just silent. (e.g. mailman, spamassassin, mysqld, haldaemon). W: lvm2-cluster service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/clvmd The RHEL4-Fedora patch got dropped from the RPM. Fixing. W: lvm2-cluster incoherent-init-script-name clvmd Calling the init script 'lvm2-cluster' or renaming the package to 'clvmd' will surely only confuse people more? - Ignoring. W: lvm2-cluster-debuginfo dangling-relative-symlink /usr/src/debug/LVM2.2.02.06/include/lvm-types.h ../lib/datastruct/lvm-types.h W: lvm2-cluster-debuginfo dangling-relative-symlink /usr/src/debug/LVM2.2.02.06/include/log.h ../lib/log/log.h W: lvm2-cluster-debuginfo dangling-relative-symlink /usr/src/debug/LVM2.2.02.06/include/list.h ../lib/datastruct/list.h I've never done anything with debuginfo packages before. Is this a bug in whatever bit of rpm generates them? I've installed the 'lvm2' debuginfo package, and it has a similar problem. I don't understand enough about how debuginfo packages are used to know whether the problem is the symlink that shouldn't be there, or if it's the file at the end of it that shouldn't be missing. On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 02:27:07PM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: A standard executable should have permission set to 0755. If you get this message, it means that you have a wrong executable permissions in some files included in your package. Oh! So it prefers the owner of the executable to have write permission. The file is owned by root so owner write is irrelevant, but it's better not to set it IMHO as that gives out the wrong message, suggesting it's a file other applications might want to modify: for example, editors will often warn the file is read-only if you try to modify it even as root. I think that 'Error' from rpmlint should be downgraded to 'information', and it should be inverted - warning if the owner write bit is *set* on an executable. %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig All I know of -p is that it automatically figures out what the Requires(postun) would need. Ah. Does it work split line I wonder? %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig That's why its just a warning. Although 'clvmd' is rather cryptic. Would have been nice to have had a better name for it. Thanks, can you incorporate some of the above changes? The ones I mentioned in the email I'd
[Bug 191200] Review Request: lvm2-cluster
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: lvm2-cluster https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191200 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-15 14:57 EST --- The permissions are more generic and reference both binary files and scripts. Scripts you may want to edit. Binaries probably not. But your text editor will most likely complain if you try to edit a binary (: I don't know if the %post -p stuff works multi-line. With your changes this is now accepted, but just need Bill's signoff on it, and information about where to put it in comps. Bill? -- 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 191200] Review Request: lvm2-cluster
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: lvm2-cluster https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191200 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-15 15:54 EST --- (In reply to comment #18) So the rpmlint package itself needs fixing to include a man page for a binary it installed! Already there since version 0.76. $ rpm -qdp http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/extras/5/i386/rpmlint-0.76-1.fc5.noarch.rpm | grep man /usr/share/man/man1/rpmlint.1.gz -- 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 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] 2006-06-15 16:15 EST --- For the time being, I'll roll with BSD for the license tag, because that's what the ganglia folks themselves put in the spec included in their distributed tarball. I'll shoot a query to the project mailing list though -- 3.0.4 isn't too far out, from what I can tell. Package now imported, just waiting on branching to close the ticket... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195292] 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=195292 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-15 16:20 EST --- Musts: - rpmlint has two complaints: $ rpmlint SRPMS/openbox-3.3-0.3.rc2.src.rpm W: openbox strange-permission openbox.desktop 0775 $ rpmlint RPMS/i386/openbox-* E: openbox script-without-shellbang /usr/share/xsessions/openbox.desktop the SRPM one is valid -- openbox.desktop doesn't need be executable in the source tree and doesn't appear to need to be executable even when installed (gdm still works with that session with it set to 0644) the script-without-shellbang appears to be bogus + package name is fine + spec file name is fine + package meets packaging guidelines + license is open source + license is correct + license is included + spec is English + spec is legible it could be simpler if the conditionalized epoch stuff were left out for the -devel package, if the version macroization were calmed down (the package releases every two years, so updating versions isn't that big a deal ;-), and if the x requires stuff weren't conditionalized since you'll have separate specs in each branch anyway. Not a big deal though + source matches upstream $ md5sum openbox-3.3-rc2.tar.gz ../SOURCES/openbox-3.3-rc2.tar.gz 1ff100d27cc1f47dadebb884a696dac3 openbox-3.3-rc2.tar.gz 1ff100d27cc1f47dadebb884a696dac3 ../SOURCES/openbox-3.3-rc2.tar.gz $ + package builds + no archs excluded + BuildRequires complete + locales dealt with + shared libraries dealt with - package dir ownership is broken for the theme files: /usr/share/themes/Allegro/openbox-3/bullet.xbm /usr/share/themes/Allegro/openbox-3/themerc /usr/share/themes/Artwiz/openbox-3/themerc /usr/share/themes/Blah41/openbox-3/themerc /usr/share/themes/Om4Ob/openbox-3/close.xbm /usr/share/themes/Om4Ob/openbox-3/close_hover.xbm /usr/share/themes/Om4Ob/openbox-3/desk.xbm /usr/share/themes/Om4Ob/openbox-3/desk_hover.xbm /usr/share/themes/Om4Ob/openbox-3/desk_toggled.xbm /usr/share/themes/Om4Ob/openbox-3/iconify.xbm /usr/share/themes/Om4Ob/openbox-3/iconify_hover.xbm /usr/share/themes/Om4Ob/openbox-3/iconify_pressed.xbm /usr/share/themes/Om4Ob/openbox-3/max.xbm /usr/share/themes/Om4Ob/openbox-3/max_disabled.xbm /usr/share/themes/Om4Ob/openbox-3/max_hover.xbm /usr/share/themes/Om4Ob/openbox-3/max_pressed.xbm /usr/share/themes/Om4Ob/openbox-3/max_toggled.xbm /usr/share/themes/Om4Ob/openbox-3/shade.xbm /usr/share/themes/Om4Ob/openbox-3/shade_disabled.xbm /usr/share/themes/Om4Ob/openbox-3/shade_hover.xbm /usr/share/themes/Om4Ob/openbox-3/shade_toggled.xbm /usr/share/themes/Om4Ob/openbox-3/themerc /usr/share/themes/TheBear/openbox-3/themerc needs to own Allegro, Artwiz, etc and openbox-3 dirs + no duplicated files - permissions need fixing for openbox.desktop in SRPM and possibly in RPM + %clean fine + macros fine + package is code + no large docs + no inappropriate %doc + headers in -devel + .pc in -devel + correct library split between base and -devel + devel require of base is correct + .la excluded + no Gnome desktop-file needed + doesn't incorrectly own dirs Shoulds: + builds in mock + software works Looks pretty good -- only changes required are fixing theme file directory ownership and the permissions on the desktop 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 195585] New: Review Request: tetex-fonts-hebrew
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=195585 Summary: Review Request: tetex-fonts-hebrew 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://ivrix.org.il/redhat/tetex-fonts-hebrew.spec SRPM URL: http://ivrix.org.il/redhat/tetex-fonts-hebrew-0.1-1.src.rpm Description: Currently, the tetex package includes Hebrew support (from babel), but it is useless because no Hebrew fonts are intalled in tetex-fonts. Since good Type 1 fonts are available in the fonts-hebrew rpm, and since it might not be sensible to burden tetex-fonts with Hebrew dependency, I suggest adding tetex-fonts-hebrew. This package installs the Culmus fonts into tetex, and makes them the default for Hebrew babel documents. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188496] Review Request: PyQt-qscintilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: PyQt-qscintilla https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188496 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-15 16:56 EST --- imported, built. %changelog * Thu Jun 15 2006 Rex Dieter rexdieter[AT]users.sf.net 3.16-3 - devel/fc6 branch uses PyQt-3.16 * Thu Jun 15 2006 Rex Dieter rexdieter[AT]users.sf.net 3.15-2 - own %%_datadir/sip -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195303] Review Request: perl-POE
Please 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-POE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195303 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-15 17:00 EST --- License tag tweaked as recommended. Imported and built for FC-[45], devel! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195292] 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=195292 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-15 17:05 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) the script-without-shellbang appears to be bogus Nope, see rpmlint -I script-without-shellbang -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195292] 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=195292 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-15 17:09 EST --- Nope, see rpmlint -I script-without-shellbang I'm not sure if the desktop files for gdm session selection need to be executable or not. If they don't, it's right. If they do, it's bogus Every one on the systems I looked at was executable, but they appear to still work if made non-executable -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195303] Review Request: perl-POE
Please 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-POE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195303 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-15 17:12 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) RPM is just finding both versioned and unversioned dependencies from different files. (Loop::Tk comes from both Loop/Tk.pm and Loop/TkActiveState.pm.) I don't think it's worth trying to filter these. The problem is that the unversioned ones trump the versioned ones and make it impossible to have any meaningful versioned dependencies to those in other packages as the unversioned provisions satisfy all versioned dependencies. I don't see why the unversioned ones should not be filtered. There are several cases where this is already being done in the tree. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195303] Review Request: perl-POE
Please 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-POE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195303 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-15 18:11 EST --- I'm afraid I don't understand. Are you saying that an unversioned Provides: A will satisfy Requires: A = 99? That is rather surprising to me, and would seem to be yet another bug. I wonder just how many rpm bugs we're expected to work around? At some point it would seem like a better bet to just get them fixed. Chris, if you need help in filtering these, just let me know. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-15 20:22 EST --- The only rpmlint warning left is: W: emacs-gtypist no-documentation which can be ignored. Review: * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. emacs-gtypist contains lisp files for emacs only. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. * source files match upstream: 200d42de9a0070866d88116112370f0a gtypist-2.7.tar.bz2 * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * rpmlint has only ignorable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: emacs-gtypist-2.7-3.fc6.x86_64.rpm emacs-gtypist = 2.7-3.fc6 = emacs gtypist-2.7-3.fc6.x86_64.rpm gtypist = 2.7-3.fc6 = /bin/sh /sbin/install-info /usr/bin/perl fortune-mod libncurses.so.5()(64bit) perl(Carp) perl(File::Temp) perl(Getopt::Std) perl(strict) * no shared libraries are present. * package is not relocatable. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * %clean is present. * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * scriptlets (install-info) are OK. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. * not a GUI app. 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 192438] Review Request: fedora-xgl-settings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: fedora-xgl-settings https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192438 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |NEEDINFO_REPORTER CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-15 21:01 EST --- Spec url seems to return a 404-not-found error? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177117] Review Request: libtlen - Tlen.pl client 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: libtlen - Tlen.pl client library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177117 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-15 21:47 EST --- I know this is an old ticket; is there still interest in getting it in? I'll be happy to review it if so. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195420] Review Request: clips - Tools for developing expert systems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: clips - Tools for developing expert systems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195420 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-16 00:17 EST --- Thanks for the input... and I'm really glad to hear it built against devel. Added libXt-devel, libXext-devel and libXmu-devel to BuildRequires (libXaw-devel was already in there). Here's the new files: Spec URL: http://miskatonic.cs.nmsu.edu/pub/clips.spec SRPM URL: http://miskatonic.cs.nmsu.edu/pub/fedora/5/srpms/clips-6.23-2.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
