[Bug 188359] Review Request: bugzilla - bug tracking tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bugzilla - bug tracking tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188359 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 02:06 EST --- Your post scriptlet runs checksetup.pl, which outputs a *lot* of stuff. You might want to make it output to /dev/null, since this is an RPM. Also, why do you create the fake localconfig file? Is that necessary? There are a few optional requires that Bugzilla also needs: graphviz (for generating dependency graphs) and patchutils (for interdiff). Bugzilla also requires specific minimum versions of various CPAN modules, and the versions are specified in checksetup.pl. Will the automatic requires gathering figure that out? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 184000] Review Request: emacs-vm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: emacs-vm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=184000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 02:10 EST ---
Sorry, I meant to review this quite a while back...
OK - Package name
OK - Spec file matches base package name.
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
OK - License (GPL)
OK - License field in spec matches
OK - License file included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
OK - Sources match upstream md5sum:
7866f6243e398d76ae32356a4af76fa3 vm-7.19.tar.gz
7866f6243e398d76ae32356a4af76fa3 vm-7.19.tar.gz.1
OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
n/a - Package needs ExcludeArch
OK - BuildRequires correct
n/a - Spec handles locales/find_lang
n/a - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
n/a - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be.
OK - Package owns all the directories it creates.
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
OK - Spec has consistant macro usage.
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
n/a - -doc subpackage needed/used.
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
n/a - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
n/a - .pc files in -devel subpackage.
n/a - .so files in -devel subpackage.
n/a - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
n/a - .la files are removed.
n/a - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file
OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
See below - No rpmlint output.
Issues:
1. Should the Requires for the el subpackage be:
'Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}' instead of just
'Requires: %{name} = %{version}'
That could cause some confusion down the road.
2. You have the Group as 'Applications/Editors'
Since this is a mail reader perhaps one of:
Applications/Communications
Applications/Internet
Applications/Productivity
would be more approprate?
3. One (ignoreable) rpmlint warning:
W: emacs-vm-el no-documentation
As none of those are blockers, this package is APPROVED.
You may want to look at items 1 and 2 as you are importing.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195393] Review Request: pyxmms
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pyxmms https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195393 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 02:13 EST --- Created an attachment (id=131174) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=131174action=view) spec file -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195394] Review Request: CastPodder
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: CastPodder https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195394 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 02:15 EST --- I'm not sure what they act as. Given they're 0644, I'll guess that they're add in scripts which are not directly executed. I'll remove the !python line first, see what happens and if it fails, change the lot to /usr/bin/env python -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187294] Review Request: gwyddion
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gwyddion https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187294 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||177841 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 02:15 EST --- Since you are seeking a sponsor, you may wish to review: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/HowToGetSponsored (adding FE-NEEDSPONSOR blocking 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 195393] Review Request: pyxmms
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pyxmms https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195393 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 02:43 EST --- looks good to me. APPROVED. Remember to close this as NEXTRELEASE once it's imported and built. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192884] Review Request: poedit - GUI editor for GNU gettext .po files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: poedit - GUI editor for GNU gettext .po files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192884
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 02:51 EST ---
OK - Package name
OK - Spec file matches base package name.
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
OK - License (MIT)
OK - License field in spec matches
OK - License file included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
OK - Sources match upstream md5sum:
e76a84ae4be4ad9d9a176fd8a1a2effb poedit-1.3.4.tar.gz
e76a84ae4be4ad9d9a176fd8a1a2effb poedit-1.3.4.tar.gz.1
OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
n/a - Package needs ExcludeArch
OK - BuildRequires correct
OK - Spec handles locales/find_lang
n/a - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
n/a - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be.
OK - Package owns all the directories it creates.
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
OK - Spec has consistant macro usage.
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
n/a - -doc subpackage needed/used.
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
n/a - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
n/a - .pc files in -devel subpackage.
n/a - .so files in -devel subpackage.
n/a - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
n/a - .la files are removed.
OK - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file
OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
See below - No rpmlint output.
Issues:
1. Some rpmlint output:
Not sure if it's worth fixing these with sed/dos2unix/perl or just
reporting it upstream:
W: poedit wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/poedit-1.3.4/en/gettext.hhp
W: poedit wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/poedit-1.3.4/en/gettext.hhc
W: poedit wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/poedit-1.3.4/en/poedit.hhc
W: poedit wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/poedit-1.3.4/en/poedit.hhp
These are likely locales that rpmlint doesn't know about/are nonstandard?
E: poedit incorrect-locale-subdir /usr/share/locale/ast/LC_MESSAGES/poedit.mo
E: poedit incorrect-locale-subdir /usr/share/locale/fur/LC_MESSAGES/poedit.mo
2. I did a mock build for fc5 and that worked fine. Given the above comments
I also did a rpmbuild --rebuild on both a fc5 and devel machine and those
both worked just fine as well, everything seems to build as expected in both
mock/non mock env's.
3. There are lots of warnings when building, like:
/usr/include/wx-2.6/wx/clntdata.h:31: warning: dereferencing type-punned pointer
will break strict-aliasing rules
Might be worth reporting upstream.
None of the above are blockers, so this package is APPROVED.
remember to close this bug with NEXTRELEASE after it's imported and built.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191208] Review Request: The Ipe extensible drawing editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: The Ipe extensible drawing editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191208 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 03:05 EST --- Update: Spec URL: http://www.di.ens.fr/~rineau/Fedora/ipe.spec SRPM URL: http://www.di.ens.fr/~rineau/Fedora/ipe-6.0-0.5.pre26.src.rpm %changelog * Tue Jun 20 2006 Laurent Rineau [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 6.0-0.5.pre26 - New patch ipe-6.0pre26-ipelet-pro_files.patch: fix the pro files of ipelets: the configshould be plugin instead of dll. - Cleanup of the %%files directives: do not own directories which are created by the main package in subpackages. Thank you for your help, Gérard. The upstream ipelets pro files where incorrect, actually. I am in touch with the upstream author. The patch will be in next public prerelease, I think. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 185951] Review Request: amsn : msn messenger clone
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: amsn : msn messenger clone
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185951
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 03:30 EST ---
(In reply to comment #31)
(In reply to comment #27)
(In reply to comment #25)
* Missing Requires: mozilla. I would recommend, however, changing the
default browser command from 'mozilla $url' to 'htmlview $url' and
adding Requires: htmlview. This will launch the url in the
user's preferred web browser.
I changed mozilla to htmlview but I am not sure about requiring it. aMSN
runs
fine without it, only when you try to open an url it tells you you should
check
your preferences. People not having htmlview have chosen for that i guess,
since
it is installed by default.
I still think you should add Requires: htmlview, sox. If the application
uses it, it should be in the Requires: list. Even though htmlview is
installed by default, it's best to make sure that the package has it
available. Fortunately, amsn won't crash if it's not there, it will just
print out a warning that the user needs to modify their configuration.
I don't think the additional Requires: will hurt anything.
Ok, in the past I have been pissed off when i wanted to remove something, and it
pulled in lots of other stuff which I didn't see the point in. I added the
requires for sox, htmlview and tkdnd (since that seems to fall in the same
category, without it drag and drop doesn't work)
Are there plans to make the RC1 release public? It'd be really nice to have a
working Source0: link in the spec file that points to SF. Right now I can't
get
to it using curl, wget, or a browser.
Yes there are plans, but we want all packages created first, and synced to
mirrors. In the meanwhile go to:
http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/amsn/amsn-0.96rc1.tar.bz2?download since what
is in Source0 should work, but doesn't because of sf slowness I think.
* Is there a special reason why the amsn commands (amsn, amsn-remote,
amsn-remote-CLI) are located in %{_datadir}/amsn and only linked to
%{_bindir}? Why can't they just be installed directly into %{_bindir}?
Yes, the file perform some magic to see where they are located, and set some
variables accordingly to be able to find plugins etc.
Ok. That makes sense. You might suggest to upstream :) that they validate
$program_dir before trying to resolve symlinks. This would allow you to use
sed
in the spec file to set program_dir to %{_datadir}/%{name} and bypass the
symlink dereferencing in the program. As a result, the program should still
work as it does now, but it would also work if amsn weren't installed in the
data directory.
No changes were needed, after some looking at the code I could do it with one
sed line in the spec
A few other items:
MUSTFIX
===
* Remove the extra from the comment in the .desktop file
ok, did it in the spec and upstream as well
* It turns out that /usr/share/amsn/README is needed at runtime for the
About box. You can go ahead and remove it from the list of doc files
that are deleted during %install. Do you know of any other doc files
that are used at runtime?
Only HELP, which you mention below and CREDITS, which I now don't delete as well
SHOULD
==
* The Help - Contents menu item doesn't seem very useful, since it
describes how to install and start amsn, which the user must have
already done if they can activate the menu. I'd suggest to upstream that
they either remove this menu item, or replace the Help -Contents text with
something more useful.
Ok, I told upstream :) and they told me it will be fixed before next release.
Good catch, I guess we never read the help documents ourselves..
http://amsn.hoentjen.eu/download/amsn.spec
http://amsn.hoentjen.eu/download/amsn-0.96-0.11.rc1.src.rpm
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195393] Review Request: pyxmms
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: pyxmms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195393
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 03:35 EST ---
A couple of points:
1. Simply adding %ghost /%{python_sitelib}/xmms/*.pyo is not sufficient since
the .pyo files are already included in the package courtesy of the previous line
/%{python_sitearch}/xmms/. The standard idiom for this is:
%dir %{python_sitearch}/xmms/
%{python_sitearch}/xmms/*.py
%{python_sitearch}/xmms/*.pyc
%ghost %{python_sitearch}/xmms/*.pyo
In this case it will also be necessary to have:
%{python_sitearch}/xmms/*.so
Note that no leading slash is necessary for %{python_sitearch} as the macro
expansion includes one already.
2. The version of the package imported into cvs does not have the spec file from
Comment #2. Please be more careful about what you import into cvs (and build?).
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195921] Review Request: sextractor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sextractor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195921 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 04:18 EST --- About the files in /usr/share/sextractor: Two of them are suppose to be edited by the user: default.sex and default.param I agree that default.sex and default.param should go to %doc The rest of the files are convolution masks for optimal detection of objects in images and the neural network weights. These files are not supposed to be edited by the user. Should these files go to /etc? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195393] Review Request: pyxmms
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pyxmms https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195393 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 04:27 EST --- Comment #2 was a test spec - I should have pointed that out. The one in cvs is the correct one. I'll amend the spec as suggested in #4, test and upload tonight. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195394] Review Request: CastPodder
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: CastPodder https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195394 Bug 195394 depends on bug 195393, which changed state. Bug 195393 Summary: Review Request: pyxmms https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195393 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196003] New: Review Request: Kmenu-gnome
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=196003 Summary: Review Request: Kmenu-gnome 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://beta.glwb.info/kmenugnome/kmenu-gnome.spec SRPM URL: http://beta.glwb.info/kmenugnome/kmenu-gnome-0.5-1.src.rpm Description: K Menu with Gnome folder and extra icons for Fedora Core 5. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196003] Review Request: Kmenu-gnome
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Kmenu-gnome https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196003 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 05:59 EST --- This spec file is rather particular, based on the project leader's spec file, Ive tried to make it fit to FE policies, but still Its far from getting accept to Fedora Extras. rpmlint -i complains: chitlesh(i386)[0]$rpmlint -i kmenu-gnome-0.5-1.i386.rpm E: kmenu-gnome no-binary The package should be of the noarch architecture because it doesn't contain any binaries. E: kmenu-gnome standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/share This package owns a directory that is part of the standard hierarchy, which can lead to default directory permissions or ownerships being changed to something non-standard. E: kmenu-gnome standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr This package owns a directory that is part of the standard hierarchy, which can lead to default directory permissions or ownerships being changed to something non-standard. E: kmenu-gnome standard-dir-owned-by-package /etc This package owns a directory that is part of the standard hierarchy, which can lead to default directory permissions or ownerships being changed to something non-standard. E: kmenu-gnome standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/share/icons This package owns a directory that is part of the standard hierarchy, which can lead to default directory permissions or ownerships being changed to something non-standard. W: kmenu-gnome non-conffile-in-etc /etc/xdg/menus/applications-merged/kmenu-gnome.menu A non-executable file in your package is being installed in /etc, but is not a configuration file. All non-executable files in /etc should be configuration files. Mark the file as %config in the spec file. W: kmenu-gnome dangerous-command-in-%post rm W: kmenu-gnome dangerous-command-in-%preun rm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196006] New: Review Request: perl-WWW-Bugzilla - Handles submission/update of bugzilla bugs via WWW::Mechanize
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=196006 Summary: Review Request: perl-WWW-Bugzilla - Handles submission/update of bugzilla bugs via WWW::Mechanize 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://gsd.di.uminho.pt/jpo/software/fedora/perl-WWW-Bugzilla.spec SRPM URL: http://gsd.di.uminho.pt/jpo/software/fedora/perl-WWW-Bugzilla-0.8-1.src.rpm Description: This module provides a perl API for adding and updating Bugzilla bugs. It can be useful in writing custom frontends to a Bugzilla server, and the frontends do not have to sit on the same server as long as they can reach it via HTTP. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188359] Review Request: bugzilla - bug tracking tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bugzilla - bug tracking tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188359 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 06:25 EST --- (In reply to comment #33) Bugzilla also requires specific minimum versions of various CPAN modules, and the versions are specified in checksetup.pl. Will the automatic requires gathering figure that out? There's an easy way to find out - use: $ rpm -qp --requires bugzilla-xxx.noarch.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 184000] Review Request: emacs-vm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: emacs-vm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=184000 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 06:45 EST --- Hi Kevin, Thanks for taking the time to review, much appreciated. I think you're probably right - Applications/Communications may be the appropriate group. I'll ponder on that. And regarding point one - yes version-release would be better. Will make those changes. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196007] New: Review Request: kdirstat
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=196007 Summary: Review Request: kdirstat 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://beta.glwb.info/kdirstat/kdirstat.spec SRPM URL: http://beta.glwb.info/kdirstat/kdirstat-2.5.3-1.src.rpm Description: KDirStat (KDE Directory Statistics) is a utility program that sums up disk usage for directory trees - very much like the Unix 'du' command. It can also help you clean up used space. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196007] Review Request: kdirstat
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdirstat https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196007 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 06:58 EST --- chitlesh(i386)[0]$rpmlint -i kdirstat-2.5.3-1.i386.rpm W: kdirstat symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/kdirstat/common /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/common I don't know exactly what should be done here. chitlesh(i386)[0]$rpmlint -I symlink-should-be-relative symlink-should-be-relative : No output. Ive filed a bug against rpmlint https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196008 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196003] Review Request: Kmenu-gnome
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Kmenu-gnome https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |177841 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196007] Review Request: kdirstat
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdirstat https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|177841 |163776 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 07:14 EST --- Chitlesh, It seems that you misunderstand the sponsoring process. You've already been sponsored by me for knetstats and you only need to be sponsored once. So now this is a regular review request which can be done by any FE packager. Resetting the blocker bug to FE-NEW. I'll get back to you on your rpmlint issues when I find the time. You'll probably have to find someone else todo the review though I'm rather busy at the moment. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196003] Review Request: Kmenu-gnome
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Kmenu-gnome https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|177841 |163776 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 07:14 EST --- Chitlesh, It seems that you misunderstand the sponsoring process. You've already been sponsored by me for knetstats and you only need to be sponsored once. So now this is a regular review request which can be done by any FE packager. Resetting the blocker bug to FE-NEW. I'll get back to you on your rpmlint issues when I find the time. You'll probably have to find someone else todo the review though I'm rather busy at the moment. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 184000] Review Request: emacs-vm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: emacs-vm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=184000 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 07:27 EST --- mew and wl have been Applications/Internet FWIW. (My initial reaction on seeing this discussion was that Application/* should be for desktop applications but doesn't seem to have been the case always.:) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196003] Review Request: Kmenu-gnome
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Kmenu-gnome https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 07:32 EST --- Not an official review as I'm not yet sponsored Chitlesh, I also found that rpmlint -i kmenu-gnome-0.5-1.src.rpm E: kmenu-gnome invalid-spec-name kmenu-gnome-fc5.spec Your spec filename must end with '.spec'. If it's not the case, rename your file and rebuild your package. so rename spec file name to kmenu-gnome.spec also try to list which files this package belongs under %files section -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196007] Review Request: kdirstat
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: kdirstat
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196007
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 07:37 EST ---
(In reply to comment #1)
chitlesh(i386)[0]$rpmlint -i kdirstat-2.5.3-1.i386.rpm
W: kdirstat symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/kdirstat/common
/usr/share/doc/HTML/en/common
I don't know exactly what should be done here.
The error message is fairly self-explanatory. You have a symlink that points to
an absolute location (/usr/share/doc/HTML/en/common) rather than a relative one
(../common). Absolute symlinks should be avoided as they don't work as intended
in chroot-ed environments such as the anaconda installer.
You can fix it in %install at some point after doing make install:
# Fix absolute symlink
rm -f $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_docdir}/HTML/en/kdirstat/common
ln -s ../common $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_docdir}/HTML/en/kdirstat/common
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195764] Review Request: tcpick
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tcpick https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195764 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 07:48 EST --- Okay these two minor matters have been applied... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196003] Review Request: Kmenu-gnome
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Kmenu-gnome https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196003 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 07:56 EST --- Ok let me try to solve rpmlint errors for you. rpmlint -i complains: chitlesh(i386)[0]$rpmlint -i kmenu-gnome-0.5-1.i386.rpm E: kmenu-gnome no-binary The package should be of the noarch architecture because it doesn't contain any binaries. Then you can add to SPEC file BuildArchitectures: noarch E: kmenu-gnome standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/share This package owns a directory that is part of the standard hierarchy, which can lead to default directory permissions or ownerships being changed to something non-standard. E: kmenu-gnome standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr This package owns a directory that is part of the standard hierarchy, which can lead to default directory permissions or ownerships being changed to something non-standard. E: kmenu-gnome standard-dir-owned-by-package /etc This package owns a directory that is part of the standard hierarchy, which can lead to default directory permissions or ownerships being changed to something non-standard. E: kmenu-gnome standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/share/icons This package owns a directory that is part of the standard hierarchy, which can lead to default directory permissions or ownerships being changed to something non-standard. You should not make Systems standard direcory's to belong to your package. thats what i ask you to add only those files that are installed by your package. W: kmenu-gnome non-conffile-in-etc /etc/xdg/menus/applications-merged/kmenu-gnome.menu A non-executable file in your package is being installed in /etc, but is not a configuration file. All non-executable files in /etc should be configuration files. Mark the file as %config in the spec file. under %files section you can add %config /etc/xdg/menus/applications-merged/kmenu-gnome.menu W: kmenu-gnome dangerous-command-in-%post rm W: kmenu-gnome dangerous-command-in-%preun rm why the patch is needed to apply at post routine?? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 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. Summary: Review Request: tetex-fonts-hebrew https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195585 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Component|Package Review |tetex-fontools --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 08:21 EST --- I answered my own scriptlet question by stealing the skiptlets of tetex-font-kerkis rpm. Please review http://ivrix.org.il/redhat/tetex-fonts-hebrew-0.1-4.src.rpm istead. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195921] Review Request: sextractor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sextractor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195921 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 08:52 EST --- Two of them are suppose to be edited by the user: default.sex and default.param I agree that default.sex and default.param should go to %doc Will the program look for them in any specific place, or do they go into the home directory or the current directory? Looking at the source code it seems like the latter, and it also looks like the program includes a hardcoded copy (in prefs.h) that it can dump on demand. So you're right, if the program won't look for them anywhere, they should be marked %doc. The rest of the files are convolution masks for optimal detection of objects in images and the neural network weights. These files are not supposed to be edited by the user. Should these files go to /etc? They seem fine in /usr/share. The point about /usr/share is that files must be arch-independent and not written to, in case /usr is shared between 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 196007] Review Request: kdirstat
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdirstat https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196007 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 09:05 EST --- Thanks Paul, Updated: Spec URL: http://beta.glwb.info/kdirstat/kdirstat.spec SRPM URL: http://beta.glwb.info/kdirstat/kdirstat-2.5.3-2.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
[Bug 188359] Review Request: bugzilla - bug tracking tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bugzilla - bug tracking tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188359 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 10:08 EST --- Max: The fake localconfig is created so that it can be included in the payload as a config file. If it isn't created until %post, then the RPMdb doesn't know about it and it could potentially get whacked during a package upgrade. The automatic requires gathering doesn't seem to include perl module versions, just presence or absence. That may be a blocker, in which case requires filtering will start getting ugly... New packages: SPEC: http://www.berningeronline.net/bugzilla.spec SRPM: http://www.berningeronline.net/bugzilla-2.22-3.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195764] Review Request: tcpick
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tcpick https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195764 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 10:32 EST --- Excellent, package APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193478] Review Request: wordpress - database driven blogging software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: wordpress - database driven blogging software https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193478 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 10:44 EST --- And you also corrected the httpd conf file. :) Everything looks good to go now, package APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195921] Review Request: sextractor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sextractor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195921 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 10:56 EST --- The *.conv files are simple ASCII, so I think I can leave them in /usr/share I have moved default.param and default.sex to %doc Additionally, I have solved the problem with src/fits/fitsconv.c The new spec and SRPM are here: http://t-rex.fis.ucm.es/~spr/sextractor.spec http://t-rex.fis.ucm.es/~spr/sextractor-2.4.4-2.fc5.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193784] Review Request: linuxdcpp - A port of DC++ to Linux
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: linuxdcpp - A port of DC++ to Linux https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193784 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 11:21 EST --- Updated version here: SRPM URL: ftp://andriy.asplinux.com.ua/pub/people/andy/extras/linuxdcpp-0.0-0.4. 20060620cvs.src.rpm Just update from CVS. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196007] Review Request: kdirstat
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdirstat https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196007 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 12:17 EST --- Regarding absolute vs relative symlinks, see http://rpmlint.zarb.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/ticket/25 (and feel free to comment on it to bug 196008 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 181068] Review Request: html401-dtds - HTML 4.01 document type definitions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: html401-dtds - HTML 4.01 document type definitions https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181068 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 12:47 EST --- http://cachalot.mine.nu/5/SRPMS/html401-dtds-4.01-19991224.2.src.rpm * Tue Jun 20 2006 Ville Skyttä ville.skytta at iki.fi - 4.01-19991224.2 - Require install-catalog at post-install and pre-uninstall time (#181068). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194374] Review Request: kdegames: K Desktop Environment - Games
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdegames: K Desktop Environment - Games https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194374 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 13:07 EST --- %changelog * Mon Jun 19 2006 Rex Dieter rexdieter[AT]users.sf.net 6:3.5.3-3 - move %%_libdir/libkdeinit_*.so bits to main pkg Why an %exclude on devel package if the files are already defined under the main pkg? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194374] Review Request: kdegames: K Desktop Environment - Games
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: kdegames: K Desktop Environment - Games
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194374
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 13:31 EST ---
%{_libdir}/lib*.so
%exclude %{_libdir}/libkdeinit_*.so
Means, I want (in -devel) all the lib*.so files *except* for the libkdeinit_.so
ones.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194374] Review Request: kdegames: K Desktop Environment - Games
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: kdegames: K Desktop Environment - Games
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194374
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 13:32 EST ---
%{_libdir}/lib*.so
%exclude %{_libdir}/libkdeinit_*.so
Means, I want (in -devel) all the lib*.so files *except* for the libkdeinit_.so
ones. Else, we'd get them included twice (ie, in both pkgs)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-06-20 13:36 EST --- Something has to own: /usr/share/themes/Allegro /usr/share/themes/Allegro/openbox-3 (and likewise for every other theme) It should probably be your package, unless theres some reason it can't be. Openbox 3 themes aren't compatible with styles for blackbox or its derivatives so you can't share them -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194563] Review Request: conman - the console manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: conman - the console manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194563 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||187029 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 185951] Review Request: amsn : msn messenger clone
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: amsn : msn messenger clone https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185951 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 13:53 EST --- (In reply to comment #32) Yes there are plans, but we want all packages created first, and synced to mirrors. In the meanwhile go to: http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/amsn/amsn-0.96rc1.tar.bz2?download since what is in Source0 should work, but doesn't because of sf slowness I think. This now works. Maybe it took longer than expected to propogate to the mirrors? Source matches upstream: 1b90fdbb0a51c7646f4d2e6b22f18711 amsn-0.96rc1.tar.bz2 All MUSTFIX items fixed. APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196057] New: Review Request: libhugetlbfs - easy access to huge pages of memory
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=196057 Summary: Review Request: libhugetlbfs - easy access to huge pages of memory 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://flooterbu.net/fedora/libhugetlbfs.spec SRPM URL: http://flooterbu.net/fedora/libhugetlbfs-20060619-1.src.rpm Description: libhugetlbfs is a library which provides easy access to huge pages of memory. It is a wrapper for the hugetlbfs file system. Applications can use huge pages to fulfill malloc() requests without being recompiled by using LD_PRELOAD. Alternatively, applications can be linked against libhugetlbfs without source modifications to load BSS or BSS, data, and text segments into large pages. This is my first package and I am seeking a sponsor. Note: This package is currently intended for FC5 only, due to kernel/glibc-headers changes in Rawhide. This is a temporary situation until libhugetlbfs can accomodate these changes. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194563] Review Request: conman - the console manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: conman - the console manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194563 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|187029 | 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 196057] Review Request: libhugetlbfs - easy access to huge pages of memory
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libhugetlbfs - easy access to huge pages of memory https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196057 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |177841 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191538] Review Request: qsynth - Qt based Fluidsynth GUI front end
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: qsynth - Qt based Fluidsynth GUI front end https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191538 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|177841 | nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 14:22 EST --- Looks good, approved and so does qjackctl, concider yourself sponsored. Please create an account (or add yourself to the cvsextras group if you alreayd have). This and the next steps are described here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Contributors . Notice that I'm keeping the blocker bug as FE-REVIEW for now and that you shouldn't import this yet as not all deps (fluidsynth) have been imported and build. I've done a full review of the deps, but unfortunatly no response sofar. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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|163778, 177841 |163779
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 14:22 EST ---
(In reply to comment #19)
Fixed (in which way is makeinstall broken?, I used to not use it and then saw
spec files using it and changed over when it works - I know not all packages
will use the options it uses, is that the broken behavior?).
There currently is some interesting discussion on f-e-l (fedora-extras-list
mailinglist) just search for DESTDIR in the archives, btw you really should
subscribe ot f-e-l.
Spec URL: http://ccrma.stanford.edu/planetccrma/extras/qjackctl.spec
SRPM URL:
http://ccrma.stanford.edu/planetccrma/extras/qjackctl-0.2.20-5.src.rpm
Looks good - Approved!
(sorry about the broken link before...)
No problem.
A quick question. In my specs I usually include the desktop entry inline with
a
cat EOF, I changed that on request as the guidelines require the desktop
entry
to be a separate source file. Has anyone ever pointed out that that makes it
more difficult to include a full path to the executable that will
automatically
reflect whatever is in %{_prefix}? I think it is important that what I package
executes what I package and not whatever is in the path that happens to match
the executable name. Right now I'm just including Exec=qjackctl in the
desktop
file instead of what I used to do which was Exec=%{_bindir}/qjackctl. I
could
obviously hack a perl -p -i -e inline script to replace a placeholder with
the
real %{_bindir} but at that point I like it better inline :-)
Erm, I've never though about this before. Everybody uses just the command name
without a full path in the .desktop files without any problems. If there are 2
identically named binaries in different places in the path then that really is a
bug. If you would like to discuss this further please do so on f-e-l, I don't
feek further discussion belongs in this BZ 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 196057] Review Request: libhugetlbfs - easy access to huge pages of memory
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libhugetlbfs - easy access to huge pages of memory https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196057 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 14:32 EST --- Build attempt on FC5/x86_64: Executing(%prep): /bin/sh -e /build/tmp/rpm-tmp.16797 + umask 022 + cd /build/BUILD + LANG=C + export LANG + unset DISPLAY + cd /build/BUILD + rm -rf libhugetlbfs-20060619 + /usr/bin/gzip -dc /build/sources/libhugetlbfs/libhugetlbfs-20060619.tar.gz + tar -xf - + STATUS=0 + '[' 0 -ne 0 ']' + cd libhugetlbfs-20060619 ++ /usr/bin/id -u + '[' 500 = 0 ']' ++ /usr/bin/id -u + '[' 500 = 0 ']' + /bin/chmod -Rf a+rX,u+w,g-w,o-w . + exit 0 Executing(%build): /bin/sh -e /build/tmp/rpm-tmp.16797 + umask 022 + cd /build/BUILD + cd libhugetlbfs-20060619 + LANG=C + export LANG + unset DISPLAY + make -j3 CC32 obj32/hugeutils.o CC32 obj32/elflink.o CC32 obj32/morecore.o CC32 obj32/debug.o elflink.c:71:2: warning: #warning __syscall_return macro not available. Some debugging will be disabled during executable remapping CC64 obj64/hugeutils.o hugeutils.c: In function 'hugetlbfs_shared_file': hugeutils.c:369: warning: cast from pointer to integer of different size CC64 obj64/elflink.o CC64 obj64/morecore.o CC64 obj64/debug.o AR obj32/libhugetlbfs.a CC32 obj32/hugetlbd ar: creating obj32/libhugetlbfs.a a - obj32/hugeutils.o a - obj32/elflink.o a - obj32/morecore.o a - obj32/debug.o LD32 (shared) obj32/libhugetlbfs.so LD64 (shared) obj64/libhugetlbfs.so AR obj64/libhugetlbfs.a ar: creating obj64/libhugetlbfs.a a - obj64/hugeutils.o a - obj64/elflink.o a - obj64/morecore.o a - obj64/debug.o CC32 obj32/gethugepagesize.o CC32 obj32/testutils.o CC32 obj32/test_root.o CC32 obj32/find_path.o CC32 obj32/unlinked_fd.o CC32 obj32/readback.o CC32 obj32/truncate.o CC32 obj32/shared.o CC32 obj32/private.o CC32 obj32/empty_mounts.o CC32 obj32/meminfo_nohuge.o CC32 obj32/ptrace-write-hugepage.o CC32 obj32/icache-hygeine.o CC32 obj32/slbpacaflush.o CC32 obj32/chunk-overcommit.o CC32 obj32/mprotect.o CC32 obj32/alloc-instantiate-race.o CC32 obj32/mlock.o CC32 obj32/malloc.o CC32 obj32/malloc_manysmall.o CC32 obj32/dummy.o LD32 (preload test) obj32/zero_filesize_segment /CC32 obj32/linkhuge.o CC32 obj32/linkhuge_nofd.o usr/bin/ld: cannot find dummy.o collect2: ld returned 1 exit status make[1]: *** [obj32/zero_filesize_segment] Error 1 make[1]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs make: *** [tests/all] Error 2 error: Bad exit status from /build/tmp/rpm-tmp.16797 (%build) RPM build errors: Bad exit status from /build/tmp/rpm-tmp.16797 (%build) Possibly useful info on what's in the build root: $ ll -d /build/BUILD/libhugetlbfs-20060619/tests/obj* drwxr-xr-x 2 jwilson jwilson 4096 Jun 20 14:30 /build/BUILD/libhugetlbfs-20060619/tests/obj32 $ find /build/BUILD/libhugetlbfs-20060619/tests/ -name dummy* /build/BUILD/libhugetlbfs-20060619/tests/obj32/dummy.o /build/BUILD/libhugetlbfs-20060619/tests/dummy.d /build/BUILD/libhugetlbfs-20060619/tests/dummy.c -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177828] Review Request: python-libtidy - Python bindings for libtidy
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-libtidy - Python bindings for libtidy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177828 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO_REPORTER |ASSIGNED --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 14:54 EST --- http://blues.mcgill.ca/~icon/fe/python-tidy.spec http://blues.mcgill.ca/~icon/fe/python-tidy-0.2-2.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
[Bug 186452] Review Request: kdebluetooth: The KDE Bluetooth Framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdebluetooth: The KDE Bluetooth Framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=186452 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 15:02 EST --- - Typo in configure options: s/dependan/dependen/ - obex.h patch seems spurious, configure runs pkg-config on openobex and retrieves -I/usr/include/openobex from there to CFLAGS - With OnlyShowIn=KDE, running gtk-update-icon-cache doesn't sound too useful - || : at end of desktop-file-install should be removed (may cause inconsistent builds or build failures), and the FIXME comment feels odd; if you know that the .desktop files are not XDG compliant, why process them using an XDG tool using --delete-original and ignoring the errors? - Unowned dir: /usr/share/applnk/Settings/Network -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196057] Review Request: libhugetlbfs - easy access to huge pages of memory
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libhugetlbfs - easy access to huge pages of memory https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196057 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 15:02 EST --- I'll just go ahead and start compiling notes... 1) I'd make the version be 0.20060619, so that in the event the package switches to a 1.x, 2.x versioning scheme, you don't have to introduce epochs to make upgrades smooth. (You'd just have to have the first non-date-versioned package be like 0.3 or higher). 2) You have an empty %doc line in the %files section of the base package... If there are no docs, remove the line, if there are docs, list 'em. :) 3) In the -devel subpackage, you're including static libs. Are these necessary for proper usage? Typically, static libs are frowned upon in Fedora packages. 4) The package is failing to build in a mock fc5/i386 chroot as well as the build failures on fc5/x86_64 (see below). Does the package try to ascertain some information about the system its building on from 'uname -m', by chance? I'm assuming the objs64 stuff shouldn't be trying to build on i386. Building target platforms: i386 Building for target i386 Executing(%prep): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.26150 + umask 022 + cd /builddir/build/BUILD + LANG=C + export LANG + unset DISPLAY + cd /builddir/build/BUILD + rm -rf libhugetlbfs-20060619 + /bin/gzip -dc /builddir/build/SOURCES/libhugetlbfs-20060619.tar.gz + tar -xf - + STATUS=0 + '[' 0 -ne 0 ']' + cd libhugetlbfs-20060619 + exit 0 Executing(%build): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.26150 + umask 022 + cd /builddir/build/BUILD + cd libhugetlbfs-20060619 + LANG=C + export LANG + unset DISPLAY + make -j4 CC32 obj32/hugeutils.o CC32 obj32/elflink.o CC32 obj32/morecore.o CC32 obj32/debug.o hugeutils.c: In function 'hugetlbfs_shared_file': hugeutils.c:369: warning: cast from pointer to integer of different size elflink.c:71:2: warning: #warning __syscall_return macro not available. Some debugging will be disabled during executable remapping CC64 obj64/hugeutils.o CC64 obj64/elflink.o elflink.c:1: sorry, unimplemented: 64-bit mode not compiled in hugeutils.c:1: sorry, unimplemented: 64-bit mode not compiled in CC64 obj64/morecore.o morecore.c:1: sorry, unimplemented: 64-bit mode not compiled in elflink.c:71:2: warning: #warning __syscall_return macro not available. Some debugging will be disabled during executable remapping hugeutils.c: In function 'hugetlbfs_shared_file': hugeutils.c:369: warning: cast from pointer to integer of different size make: *** [obj64/elflink.o] Error 1 make: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs make: *** [obj64/hugeutils.o] Error 1 make: *** [obj64/morecore.o] Error 1 error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.26150 (%build) RPM build errors: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.26150 (%build) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196057] Review Request: libhugetlbfs - easy access to huge pages of memory
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libhugetlbfs - easy access to huge pages of memory https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196057 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 15:16 EST --- Ah yes, I don't have sponsor status, but I can handle all the review then get someone to do the sponsoring when the review is complete. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188359] Review Request: bugzilla - bug tracking tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bugzilla - bug tracking tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188359 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 15:18 EST --- I thought rpm would pull versioned dependencies out of a use Module VERSION statement. It won't find them any other way as far as I can tell. In the case of this package, all of the module dependencies are unversioned. If the necessary versions were provided in base FC4 or the oldest version ever in extras then we're OK. Otherwise then there is the possibility that someone who has never done any updates might have an old module installed, so we'd have to include versioned dependency information. If we can get away with doing so for a couple of modules then it might not be too bad. But if not, it's probably easier to just turn off RPM's dependency generation altogether and just supply a list. It shouldn't be too hard to hack checksetup to dump a dependency list in the proper format and then just call it in place of the regular perl dependency generator. One additional thing bothers me. rpmlint has this complaint: E: bugzilla file-in-usr-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/bugzilla/localconfig We cannot assume that anything under /usr/share is writable except at install time, so it's really not the best place to put a config file. I looked through the source and it does look like it expects the configuration to live in $libdir. However, this seeps to be specified in only one location, Bugzilla::Config.pm, so it should be possible to patch two lines and get it to look in /etc/bugzilla instead. Do you think this is feasible? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196057] Review Request: libhugetlbfs - easy access to huge pages of memory
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libhugetlbfs - easy access to huge pages of memory https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196057 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 15:24 EST --- I have sponsor status. Review away. I'll be watching. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 175623] Review Request: yaz - Z39.50/SRW/SRU programs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: yaz - Z39.50/SRW/SRU programs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=175623 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 15:31 EST --- http://linux.duke.edu/~icon/misc/fe/yaz.spec http://blues.mcgill.ca/~icon/fe/yaz-2.1.22-1.src.rpm * Tue Jun 20 2006 Konstantin Ryabitsev [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 2.1.22-1 - Version 2.1.22 - Libtoolize correctly - BuildRequire libxslt - BuildRequire tcp_wrappers - Enable pth in configure - Add %%check routine -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188359] Review Request: bugzilla - bug tracking tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bugzilla - bug tracking tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188359 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 15:35 EST --- the README file is for gallery not bugzilla -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188359] Review Request: bugzilla - bug tracking tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bugzilla - bug tracking tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188359 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 15:43 EST --- I just noticed that myself. As to the config file, I'll move that to /etc/bugzilla and symlink to it. I'll re-roll new packages as soon as I can this afternoon, I've been handed some other high priority items for today. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188359] Review Request: bugzilla - bug tracking tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bugzilla - bug tracking tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188359 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 15:54 EST --- The reason I suggested patching is because of the multi-project configuration thing which uses localconfig.$project for the name of the config file. Just having one symlinked configuration doesn't seem like it would work in general. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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|NEEDINFO_REPORTER |ASSIGNED --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 18:01 EST --- SPEC URL: http://fedoraxgl.tuxfamily.org/repository/5/SPECS/3ddesktop-configurator.spec SRPM URL: http://fedoraxgl.tuxfamily.org/repository/5/SRPMS/3ddesktop-0.1-1.src.rpm I have write a new software to replace fedora-xgl-settings. It give the possiblity to configure AIXGL, XGL and Compiz on fedora core system. - Can be to easily configure for other core/distrib/system, via a properties file or by extending two abstract classes, if necessary. - Check hardware compatibility for Aiglx and Xgl in XML files. - Switch to default, aiglx, xgl X server. (fedora-3ddesktop-switch) - Information about system configuration. (fedora-3ddesktop-info) - A GUI that use the two above commands (fedora-3ddesktop-gui) There is still much thing has to code but it work already well. TODO: - Find real hardware support data for aiglx. - Find nice icons for System information status buttons. - Give the possibility to add new DISPLAY configuration. - Dedicated settings for each DISPLAY. Thank's to the java-gnome team for this nice binding! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196091] New: Review Request: cksfv - Utility to manipulate SFV files
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=196091 Summary: Review Request: cksfv - Utility to manipulate SFV files 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://tkmame.retrogames.com/fedora-extras/cksfv.spec SRPM URL: http://tkmame.retrogames.com/fedora-extras/cksfv-1.3.9-1.src.rpm Description: cksfv is a utility that can create and use SFV files. SFV (Simple File Verification) files are used to verify file integrity using CRC32 checksums. NOTE: This is an orphaned package, but I created a new spec file from scratch, so I'm requesting a review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194563] Review Request: conman - the console manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: conman - the console manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194563 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188359] Review Request: bugzilla - bug tracking tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bugzilla - bug tracking tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188359 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 18:42 EST --- Bugzilla tarballs never themselves include localconfig. Also, the RPM should never include it. Thus, it should never be overwritten in an upgrade. The best way to move it is just to edit the $localconfig variable in Bugzilla::Config. Don't change $libdir--that doesn't work. As far as the dependencies, it should be pretty easy, as you said, to get checksetup or some variant of it to print out the requirements in the format you need. If you search for my $modules and any calls to have_vers in checksetup.pl you can see where it stores the requirements. In the CVS version of Bugzilla this will be even easier since the requirements will mostly be in a separate .pm file, and you can write a script that just uses that module to print out the info. I think all the minimums included with FC4 are probably fine. I think we don't require anything too recent, for 2.22. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188359] Review Request: bugzilla - bug tracking tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bugzilla - bug tracking tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188359 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 18:55 EST --- My idea was just to edit the setting of $localconfig in Bugzilla/Config.pm lines 64 and 67. This file already gets patched in bugzilla-data-dir.patch so I doubt it would be much of a problem. Honestly I think that's the last thing holding this up. Well, that and the readme file talking about Gallery. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194563] Review Request: conman - the console manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: conman - the console manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194563
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 19:00 EST ---
- rpmlint output clean
- Package is named according to Package Naming Guidelines
- spec file matches base package %{name}
- package meets Packaging Guidelines
- package is licensed with open source compatible license
- license field matches actual license
- license text included in %doc
- spec file written in American english
- spec file is legible
- source package matches upstream
b47730a326376cf731c313900095449c conman-0.1.9.1.tar.bz2
- package successfully compiles and builds on FC-5 x86_64
- All build dependencies are listed
- package does not use locales
- package does not contain any shared libraries
- package is non-relocatable
- package owns all directories it creates
- no duplicate files in %files
- file permissions set appropriately
- contains proper %clean section
- macro usage consistant
- package contains permissible content
- package does not contain large documentation
- %doc files do not affect runtime
- no headers or static libraries
- no pkgconfig files
- no .so or .la files
- no GUI or .desktop file needed
- package does not own files or directories owned by other packages
=== MUST ===
- Package must add Requires: logrotate
- service conman start says [ OK ] but there is no conmand process started
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195764] Review Request: tcpick
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tcpick https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195764 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 19:14 EST --- 11312 (tcpick): Build on target fedora-development-extras succeeded. 11313 (tcpick): Build on target fedora-5-extras succeeded. 11314 (tcpick): Build on target fedora-4-extras succeeded. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195394] Review Request: CastPodder
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: CastPodder https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195394 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 19:30 EST --- Spec : http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/CastPodder.spec SRPM : http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/CastPodder-5.0-5.src.rpm Everything highlighted in #5 fixed Builds in mock (x86) rpmlint is clean It is warm, cuddly and deserves a nice red bow Christ, I need some sleep! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 180571] Review Request: puppet
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: puppet https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=180571 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 19:38 EST --- * Updated to latest upstream release 0.18.0 Spec: http://people.redhat.com/dlutter/yum/spec/puppet.spec SRPM: http://people.redhat.com/dlutter/yum/SRPMS/puppet-0.18.0-1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195921] Review Request: sextractor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sextractor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195921 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 19:39 EST --- Builds fine, rpmlint is silent and the permission on the errant source file is fixed. In addition, the sample configuration files are %doc. Everything looks good to me. 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 189263] Review Request: rsibreak
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: rsibreak https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189263 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 19:43 EST --- Thank you very much for the help and the sponsorship! Here are the build-logs: http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/build-status/[EMAIL PROTECTED]uid=11320 http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/build-status/[EMAIL PROTECTED]uid=11318 Close as next release. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 19:59 EST ---
(In reply to comment #3)
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.
Thanks for the review. Updates here:
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/green/FE/FC5/lash.spec
SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/green/FE/FC5/lash-0.5.1-3.src.rpm
Should fix:
===
* Please use %{version} in Source0 this makes life easier for yourself when
you
want to upgrade to a newer upstream version.
I've been told not to do this in the past because some people want Source0 to be
directly wget-able.
Thanks again!
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195401] Review Request: osgcal - Adapts OpenSceneGraph to use Cal3D
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: osgcal - Adapts OpenSceneGraph to use Cal3D https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195401 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196091] Review Request: cksfv - Utility to manipulate SFV files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: cksfv - Utility to manipulate SFV files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196091 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 20:41 EST --- - rpmlint checks return: E: cksfv configure-without-libdir-spec Not for this configure, as noted in the spec. - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license (GPL) OK, text in %doc, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream - package compiles on devel (x86_64) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file 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] 2006-06-20 20:56 EST ---
I have created a new version:
http://www.spicenitz.org/fedora/mlton-20051202-3.src.rpm
http://www.spicenitz.org/fedora/mlton.spec
Changes:
Create PDF documentation for mlyacc and mllex, by patching the
makefile to use pdflatex.
Move ckit-lib/doc and smlnj-lib/Doc to %{_docdir}.
Remove regression files from ckit.
I did not move the various documentation files sprinkled about
lib/sml/* (like README, etc) because the libraries in there are
basically MLton-modified third-party packages, and the files
often refer to the actual directory it's in (by saying things
like the files in this directory are ...). I could move the
files, but I'm not sure people would expect that.
Also, I do have a PPC machine here, and have been testing all
my work with it.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196003] Review Request: Kmenu-gnome
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Kmenu-gnome https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 21:34 EST --- I've gotta say this one does some absolutely nasty stuff in %post, including symlinking icons, and patching xdg menu files, (almost?) all of which could be implemented via an alternate icon theme and making a proper xdg menu and using $XDG_CONFIG_DIRS. IMO, definitely a MUSTFIX. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193478] Review Request: wordpress - database driven blogging software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: wordpress - database driven blogging software https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193478 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 22:18 EST --- imported and built for FC4, FC5, 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 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] 2006-06-20 23:13 EST --- Thanks. I've posted 3.3-0.5.rc2 which owns the entire theme directories created. Spec: http://thecodergeek.com/downloads/fedora/openbox.spec SRPM: http://thecodergeek.com/downloads/fedora/openbox-3.3-0.5.rc2.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 175623] Review Request: yaz - Z39.50/SRW/SRU programs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: yaz - Z39.50/SRW/SRU programs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=175623 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-21 00:02 EST --- Builds fine in mock (x86_64, development) and rpmlint is quiet. * 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: 2d401ea471a87e7a056ea2df9e2d9d14 yaz-2.1.22.tar.gz * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * package builds in mock (x86_64, development). * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: libyaz-2.1.22-1.fc6.x86_64.rpm libyaz.so.2()(64bit) libyazthread.so.2()(64bit) libyaz = 2.1.22-1.fc6 = /sbin/ldconfig libcrypto.so.6()(64bit) libexslt.so.0()(64bit) libgcrypt.so.11()(64bit) libgpg-error.so.0()(64bit) libssl.so.6()(64bit) libwrap.so.0()(64bit) libxml2.so.2()(64bit) libxslt.so.1()(64bit) libyaz.so.2()(64bit) libyazthread.so.2()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) libyaz-devel-2.1.22-1.fc6.x86_64.rpm libyaz-devel = 2.1.22-1.fc6 = /bin/sh libxml2-devel libyaz = 2.1.22-1.fc6 libyaz.so.2()(64bit) libyazthread.so.2()(64bit) openssl-devel readline-devel yaz-2.1.22-1.fc6.x86_64.rpm yaz = 2.1.22-1.fc6 = libcrypto.so.6()(64bit) libexslt.so.0()(64bit) libgcrypt.so.11()(64bit) libgpg-error.so.0()(64bit) libhistory.so.5()(64bit) libncurses.so.5()(64bit) libreadline.so.5()(64bit) libssl.so.6()(64bit) libwrap.so.0()(64bit) libxml2.so.2()(64bit) libxslt.so.1()(64bit) libyaz.so.2()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) * shared libraries are present; ldconfig is called and unversioned .so files are in the -devel package. * 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 present and all tests pass: === All 21 tests passed === * scriptlets present and OK (ldconfig calls) * 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. APPROVED -- 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 194563] Review Request: conman - the console manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: conman - the console manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194563 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-21 00:04 EST --- Okay, added 'Requires: logrotate' and figured out what was up w/the non-running conmand. The problem is that conmand exits cleanly if no CONSOLE devices are defined in /etc/conman.conf, meaning RETVAL was 0 (success), so I added a check to the initscript that will trigger a failure if none are present. I'll yell upstream and tell them this behavior is el stupido, but the initscript workaround should suffice for now. http://wilsonet.com/packages/conman/conman.spec http://wilsonet.com/packages/conman/conman-0.1.9.1-3.src.rpm I'd do that ckfsv review for you now, but it looks like someone beat me to it... I owe ya one. :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 181445] Review Request: php-shout
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-shout https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181445 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-21 00:19 EST --- Haven't heard or seen anything on this in a long while... anybody out 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 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-21 00:41 EST --- According to the packaging guidelines, macros in Source: is a matter of style. An example of how to use RPM to expand the macros for you is given, but ultimately you get to do what you want. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 185951] Review Request: amsn : msn messenger clone
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: amsn : msn messenger clone https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185951 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-21 01:28 EST --- built for FC5 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 186452] Review Request: kdebluetooth: The KDE Bluetooth Framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdebluetooth: The KDE Bluetooth Framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=186452 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-21 01:49 EST --- Entering bluetooth:/ in konqueror results in Malformed URL and the browsing doesn't work. The patch at http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=123607#c10 appears to fix it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
