[Bug 198830] Review Request: libmodelfile - library for accessing WorldForge model 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: libmodelfile - library for accessing WorldForge model
files
Alias: libmodelfile
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198830
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-14 02:58 EST ---
- rpmlint output:
W: libmodelfile-devel no-documentation
okay to ignore, I dont see any docs that should go in devel
- package named according to package naming guidelines
- spec filename matches base package %{name}
- package meets packaging guidelines
- license tag in spec file is open source compatible
- license matches upstream license
- licnese included in %doc
- spec file written in American english
- spec file is legible
- source matches upstream
53ded1963cc863d0fabba4f0fb4ef2db libmodelfile-0.1.92.tar.gz
- package successfully compiles and builds on x86_64 FC-5
- All build dependencies listed in BuildRequires
- package does not contain locales
- package properly uses %post/%postun ldconfig
- package is not relocatable
- package owns all directories it creates
- package does not contain duplicate files
- file permissions are set properly
- package has proper %clean section
- macro usage is consistant
- package contains permissible content
- package does not contain large documentation
- files in %doc do not affect runtime
- header files are in devel package
- pkgconfig files are in devel package
- libraries w/o suffix are in devel
- devel require base package
- package does not contain .la files
- package is not a GUI needing a .desktop file
- package does not own files or directories owned by other packages
MUST
- Add Requires: pkgconfig to devel package
- make check should have %{?_smp_mflags}
- Why are you using find to remove .la files? Why not just specifically state
which ones you are removing? And you dont BR findutils but you sholdnt anyway
because you shouldnt be using find.
- I could not get source package from Source URL, I had to use:
http://dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/worldforge/libmodelfile-0.1.92.tar.gz
(not sure why) But Source0 should be updated accordingly
- Summary contains acessing which is not an english word
- Why is group System Environment/Libraries instead of Development/Libraries?
- Have you tested this in FC4? If you plan to support FC4 please test,
BuildRequires might be different (might need xorg-x11-devel or something)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198831] Review Request: varconf - Configuration library used by WorldForge apps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: varconf - Configuration library used by WorldForge apps Alias: varconf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198831 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| Alias||varconf -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193898] Review Request: Jython - Java source interpreter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Jython - Java source interpreter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193898 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-14 03:01 EST --- Just some quick comments from looking at parts of the spec file.. - Summary is odd: Java source interpreter - Source lines should be URLs to sources - Remove Epoch - Change Group to Development/Libraries - Make BuildRoot standard - Remove these lines... Distribution: JPackage Vendor: JPackage Project That's it for now. Thanks for submitting this. If nobody picks this up, I'll do a formal review once the dependencies have been 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 198831] Review Request: varconf - Configuration library used by WorldForge apps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: varconf - Configuration library used by WorldForge apps
Alias: varconf
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198831
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-14 03:21 EST ---
- rpmlint output:
W: varconf-devel no-documentation
okay to ignore, I dont see any documentation which should go in devel
- package named according to package naming guidelines
- spec file name matches package %{name}
- package meets packaging guidelines
- license in spec file is compatible with open source license
O package does not match actual upstream license
- license file included in %doc
- spec file written in American english
- spec file is legible
- sources match upstream
b8f30226a1fee727fd124f716d8eb72e varconf-0.6.4.tar.gz
- package successfully compiles and builds on x86_64 FC-5
- all build dependencies are in BuildRequires
- package does not contain locales
- package properly uses %post/%postun ldconfig
- package is not relocatable
- package owns all directories it creates
- package does not contain duplicate files
- file permissions are set properly
- package contains proper %clean section
- macro usage is consistant
- package contains permissible content
- package does not contain large documentation
- files in %doc do not affect runtime
- header files are in devel
- pkgconfig files are in devel
- libraries w/o suffix are in devel
- devel package requires base package
- package does not contain .la files
- package is not a GUI needing .desktop files
- package does not own files or directories owned by other packages
MUST
- devel package should have Requires: pkgconfig
- make check should use smp flags
- make check should be patched to work, (not ||:) all you need to do is add
#include assert.h
once conftest is created, you need to: cd tests ; ./conftest conf.cfg
- fix license to match actual upstream license
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198833] Review Request: mercator - Terrain library for WorldForge client/server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mercator - Terrain library for WorldForge client/server Alias: mercator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198833 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| Alias||mercator -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198834] Review Request: sage - OpenGL extensions library using SDL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sage - OpenGL extensions library using SDL Alias: sage https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198834 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| Alias||sage -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198834] Review Request: sage - OpenGL extensions library using SDL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: sage - OpenGL extensions library using SDL
Alias: sage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198834
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-14 04:07 EST ---
- rpmlint output clean
- package name meets package naming guidelines
- spec file name matches package %{name}
- package meets packaging guidelines
- package licensed with open source compatible license
O license does not match upstream license
- license included in %doc
- spec file in American english
- spec file is legible
- sources match upstream
4eea72b30a88dbe5d512009913462fc3 sage-0.1.2.tar.gz
- package successfully compiles and builds on x86_64 FC-5
- all dependencies are listed in BuildRequires
- package properly containst %post/%postun ldconfig
- package is not relocatable
- package owns all directories it creates
- package does not contain duplicate files
- file permissions set properly
- package contains proper %clean section
- macro usage is consistent
- package contains permissible content
- package does not contain large documentation
- files in %doc do not affect runtime
- header files are in devel
- pkgconfig files are in devel
- libraries w/o suffix are in devel
- devel package requires base package
- package does not contain any .la files
- package is not a GUI needing .desktop files
- package does not own files or directories owned by other packages
MUST
- devel package should Requires: pkgconfig
- use %{_mandir} instead of %{_datadir}/man
- notify upstream about --disable-static failure
- fix license to match upstream license
- had to download source from:
http://dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/worldforge/sage-0.1.2.tar.gz
Source0 should be updated accordingly
SHOULD =
- add a %check even though it doesnt do anything now, it may in future
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198839] Review Request: sear - WorldForge client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sear - WorldForge client Alias: sear https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198839 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| Alias||sear -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198839] Review Request: sear - WorldForge client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: sear - WorldForge client
Alias: sear
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198839
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-14 04:14 EST ---
no time to do a full review yet, but some quick notes:
dont include pkgconfig in BR, its picked up by devel packages
use %{_desktopdir} instead of %{_datadir}/applications
use %{_icondir} instead of %{_datadir}/icons
I'm going to busy entertaining guests over Fri-Sun but will try to find some
time to squeeze in a formal review for this package. If not, will do it on
Monday.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198816] Review Request: gfs-utils - global file system userland utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gfs-utils - global file system userland utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198816 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-14 04:16 EST --- You spec contains this: if [$1 = 0 ]; then This is invalid /bin/sh syntax. There must be a blank after the '['. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198839] Review Request: sear - WorldForge client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sear - WorldForge client Alias: sear https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198839 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-14 04:26 EST --- Did a quick test and it's crashing on me :( will produce a debug backtrace when time permits. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198758] Review Request: gnome-phone-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: gnome-phone-manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198758
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-14 05:19 EST ---
== Not an official review as I'm not yet sponsored ==
Mock build for rawhide i386 is Failed. I need to add
BuildReuires: perl-XML-Parser
After that also i got errors as
+ /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/find-lang.sh
/var/tmp/gnome-phone-manager-0.7-1.fc6-root-mockbuild gnome-phone-manager
No translations found for gnome-phone-manager in
/var/tmp/gnome-phone-manager-0.7-1.fc6-root-mockbuild
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.77473 (%install)
* MUST Items:
- rpmlint shows no error.
- dist tag is present.
- The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
- The spec file name matching the base package gnome-phone-manager, in the
format gnome-phone-manager.spec.
- This package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
- The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
- The package is licensed with an open-source compatible license GPL.
- This package includes License file COPYING.
- This source package includes the text of the license in its own file,and
that file, containing the text of the license for the package is included in
%doc.
- The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. md5sum is correct
(951471bf5d6fe93fe550c60b6bdf58f9)
- This package did NOT successfully compiled and built into binary rpms
for i386 architecture.
- This package did not containd any ExcludeArch.
- This package did NOT handled locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Not used %{_datadir}/locale/*.
- This package have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
- This package used macros.
- Document files are included like README, NEWS, COPYING, AUTHORS
- Package did NOT contained any .la libtool archives.
Also,
* Source URL is present and working.
* BuildRoot is correct BuildRoot:
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
* BuildRequires is correct
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198758] Review Request: gnome-phone-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: gnome-phone-manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198758
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-14 05:45 EST ---
(In reply to comment #1)
== Not an official review as I'm not yet sponsored ==
Mock build for rawhide i386 is Failed. I need to add
BuildReuires: perl-XML-Parser
That should be:
BuildReuires: perl(XML::Parser)
After that also i got errors as
+ /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/find-lang.sh
/var/tmp/gnome-phone-manager-0.7-1.fc6-root-mockbuild gnome-phone-manager
No translations found for gnome-phone-manager in
/var/tmp/gnome-phone-manager-0.7-1.fc6-root-mockbuild
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.77473 (%install)
That's usually a sign of needing:
BuildRequires: gettext
* MUST Items:
- rpmlint shows no error.
- dist tag is present.
- The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
- The spec file name matching the base package gnome-phone-manager, in
the
format gnome-phone-manager.spec.
- This package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
- The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
- The package is licensed with an open-source compatible license GPL.
- This package includes License file COPYING.
- This source package includes the text of the license in its own
file,and
that file, containing the text of the license for the package is included in
%doc.
- The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. md5sum is correct
(951471bf5d6fe93fe550c60b6bdf58f9)
- This package did NOT successfully compiled and built into binary rpms
for i386 architecture.
- This package did not containd any ExcludeArch.
- This package did NOT handled locales properly. This is done by using
the
%find_lang macro. Not used %{_datadir}/locale/*.
It's a good idea to list things that need fixing separately from the rest of the
review checklist as that's clearer and easier to read.
- This package used macros.
But did it use them *consistently*? That's what the review guidelines are asking
to be checked.
- Document files are included like README, NEWS, COPYING, AUTHORS
Did you look to see if there are any other document files in the package that
might be included, or whether any of the included files don't have anything
useful to end users of the package?
- Package did NOT contained any .la libtool archives.
Also,
* Source URL is present and working.
* BuildRoot is correct BuildRoot:
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
* BuildRequires is correct
No, they're not. The package failed to build in mock because of the missing
buildreqs of perl(XML::Parser) and gettext.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198758] Review Request: gnome-phone-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: gnome-phone-manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198758
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-14 05:58 EST ---
(In reply to comment #2)
(In reply to comment #1)
== Not an official review as I'm not yet sponsored ==
Mock build for rawhide i386 is Failed. I need to add
BuildReuires: perl-XML-Parser
That should be:
BuildReuires: perl(XML::Parser)
After that also i got errors as
+ /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/find-lang.sh
/var/tmp/gnome-phone-manager-0.7-1.fc6-root-mockbuild gnome-phone-manager
No translations found for gnome-phone-manager in
/var/tmp/gnome-phone-manager-0.7-1.fc6-root-mockbuild
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.77473 (%install)
That's usually a sign of needing:
BuildRequires: gettext
* MUST Items:
- rpmlint shows no error.
- dist tag is present.
- The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
- The spec file name matching the base package gnome-phone-manager,
in the
format gnome-phone-manager.spec.
- This package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
- The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
- The package is licensed with an open-source compatible license GPL.
- This package includes License file COPYING.
- This source package includes the text of the license in its own
file,and
that file, containing the text of the license for the package is included in
%doc.
- The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. md5sum is correct
(951471bf5d6fe93fe550c60b6bdf58f9)
- This package did NOT successfully compiled and built into binary
rpms
for i386 architecture.
- This package did not containd any ExcludeArch.
- This package did NOT handled locales properly. This is done by
using the
%find_lang macro. Not used %{_datadir}/locale/*.
It's a good idea to list things that need fixing separately from the rest of
the
review checklist as that's clearer and easier to read.
Will remember that.
- This package used macros.
But did it use them *consistently*? That's what the review guidelines are
asking
to be checked.
Did i missed somthing to check in SPEC?
- Document files are included like README, NEWS, COPYING, AUTHORS
Did you look to see if there are any other document files in the package that
might be included, or whether any of the included files don't have anything
useful to end users of the package?
I didn't get you?
- Package did NOT contained any .la libtool archives.
Also,
* Source URL is present and working.
* BuildRoot is correct BuildRoot:
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
* BuildRequires is correct
No, they're not. The package failed to build in mock because of the missing
buildreqs of perl(XML::Parser) and gettext.
I forgot that i added perl(XML::Parser) not AUTHOR.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196262] Review Request: katapult
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: katapult https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196262 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-14 06:44 EST --- Updated: Spec URL: http://beta.glwb.info/katapult/katapult.spec SRPM URL: http://beta.glwb.info/katapult/katapult-0.3.1.3-4.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198758] Review Request: gnome-phone-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: gnome-phone-manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198758
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-14 07:03 EST ---
Thnaks for your comment Paul.
This Package requires todo following things
1) Add
BuildRequires: perl(XML::Parser),gettext
2)Package is using mixed macros as explained by Paul in
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198758#c4
Either use %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
3)I think with README, NEWS, COPYING, AUTHOR these file TODO is also important
so that let the user know what things AUTHOR is interested to implement in
future versions.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198878] New: Review Request: mutagen - Python module to handle audio metadata
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=198878 Summary: Review Request: mutagen - Python module to handle audio metadata 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://ecik.zspswidwin.pl/mutagen/mutagen.spec SRPM URL: http://ecik.zspswidwin.pl/mutagen/mutagen-1.5.1-1.src.rpm Description: Hi! Recently, I was writing an application which uses mutagen to handle metadata. So I think that would be good if all packages needed by my app was in Extras! Mutagen supports reading ID3 (all versions), APEv2, FLAC, and Ogg Vorbis/FLAC/Theora. It can write ID3v1.1, ID3v2.4, APEv2, FLAC, and Ogg Vorbis/FLAC/Theora comments. It can also read MPEG audio and Xing headers, FLAC stream info blocks, and Ogg Vorbis/FLAC/Theora stream headers. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198879] New: Review Request: kdnssd-avahi
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=198879 Summary: Review Request: kdnssd-avahi Product: Fedora Core Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/SPECS/kdnssd-avahi.spec SRPM URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/all/SRPMS.stable/kdnssd-avahi-0.1.2-6.20060713svn.src.rpm Description: KDE zeroconf implementation based on avahi The default upstream-provided zeroconf support in KDE (kdnssd) depends on Apple mDNSresponder, which is covered by APSL. The currently shipped KDE in FC has no zeroconf support whatsoever. This package, together with some changes to kdelibs package should provide KDE with zeroconf functionality. Thanks go to Rex Dieter for working on this. -- 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 198880] New: Review Request: perl-POE-Component-Client-DNS
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=198880 Summary: Review Request: perl-POE-Component-Client-DNS Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/perl-POE-Component-Client-DNS.spec SRPM URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/perl-POE-Component-Client-DNS-0.99-0.fc5.src.rpm Description: POE::Component::Client::DNS provides a facility for non-blocking, concurrent DNS requests. Using POE, it allows other tasks to run while waiting for name servers to respond. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198881] New: Review Request: perl-perl-POE-Filter-IRCD
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=198881 Summary: Review Request: perl-perl-POE-Filter-IRCD Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/perl-POE-Filter-IRCD.spec SRPM URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/perl-POE-Filter-IRCD-1.7-0.fc5.src.rpm Description: POE::Filter::IRCD provides a convenient way of parsing and creating IRC protocol lines. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198882] New: Review Request: perl-perl-POE-Component-IRC
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=198882 Summary: Review Request: perl-perl-POE-Component-IRC Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/perl-POE-Component-IRC.spec SRPM URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/perl-POE-Component-IRC-4.95-0.fc5.src.rpm Description: POE::Component::IRC is a POE component (who'd have guessed?) which acts as an easily controllable IRC client for your other POE components and sessions. You create an IRC component and tell it what events your session cares about and where to connect to, and it sends back interesting IRC events when they happen. You make the client do things by sending it events. That's all there is to it. Cool, no? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198880] Review Request: perl-POE-Component-Client-DNS
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-POE-Component-Client-DNS https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198880 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||198882 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 198881] Review Request: perl-perl-POE-Filter-IRCD
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-perl-POE-Filter-IRCD https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198881 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||198882 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 198884] New: Review Request: perl-POE-Component-Client-Keepalive
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=198884 Summary: Review Request: perl-POE-Component-Client-Keepalive Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/perl-POE-Component-Client-Keepalive.spec SRPM URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/perl-POE-Component-Client-Keepalive-0.0801-0.fc5.src.rpm Description: POE::Component::Client::Keepalive creates and manages connections for other components. It maintains a cache of kept-alive connections for quick reuse. It is written specifically for clients that can benefit from kept-alive connections, such as HTTP clients. Using it for one-shot connections would probably be silly. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198880] Review Request: perl-POE-Component-Client-DNS
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-POE-Component-Client-DNS https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198880 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||198884 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 198884] Review Request: perl-POE-Component-Client-Keepalive
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-POE-Component-Client-Keepalive https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198884 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||198885 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 196748] Review Request: setroubleshoot - automatic diagnosis of SELinux problems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: setroubleshoot - automatic diagnosis of SELinux problems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196748 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-14 09:56 EST --- ping, is this in for FC6t2? I haven't heard anything explicit and the freeze date is approaching, just checking. -- 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 198878] Review Request: mutagen - Python module to handle audio metadata
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mutagen - Python module to handle audio metadata https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||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 198245] Review Request: gnome-libs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gnome-libs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198245 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||198897 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 195363] Review Request: esc and esc-xulrunner-devel
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: esc and esc-xulrunner-devel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195363
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO
Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED])
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-14 10:23 EST ---
So the esc-xulrunner-devel package is sort of weird.
First, we don't normally put -devel in the name of srpms. -devel is usually
reserved for subpackages.
Also, you install all header files, images, config files, stylesheets, binaries,
etc into %{_libdir}. Normally we put header files in %{_includedir}, images in
%{_datadir}, binaries in %{_bindir}, etc.
On the other hand, esc-xulrunner-devel is only needed for building esc, yea? not
for running esc? Why are we installing it as a separate package at all then?
Can we just put the xulrunner tarball as an extra Source: line in the spec file
and get rid of esc-xulrunner-devel entirely?
Also, I tried to build the two packages and ran into problems. esc looks for
something called nsinstall in wrong place. I had to create a symlink for the
build to finish.
After I got it built, it didn't work with our cert server. It gave me an error
code 44 or something. This actually brings up another point.
This tool only works with a closed source certificate server that most in the
fedora community don't have access to. Maybe it would be better if we put this
in extras instead of core? What do you think?
--
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 198836] Review Request: freetype1 compatibility FreeType 1.x
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: freetype1 compatibility FreeType 1.x
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198836
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-14 10:23 EST ---
%package utils
Summary: A collection of FreeType 1.x utilities
Group: System Environment/Libraries
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
# Upgrade path
Provides: freetype-utils = 2.2.0-1
Obsoletes: freetype-utils 2.2.0-1
Very ugly. At the time this freetype-utils sub-package was
introduced, it should have started at 1.x, not 2.x.
You could still do that with a proper Epoch.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198899] New: Review Request: exim
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=198899 Summary: Review Request: exim 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://david.woodhou.se/exim.spec SRPM URL: http://david.woodhou.se/exim-4.62-3.el5.src.rpm Description: The Exim MTA. Existing RHEL4 package, now in Extras, needs to be in RHEL5. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198289] Review Request: python-pastescript - A pluggable command-line frontend
Please 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-pastescript - A pluggable command-line frontend https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198289 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||189338 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 198288] Review Request: python-pastedeploy - Load, configure, and compose WSGI applications and servers
Please 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-pastedeploy - Load, configure, and compose WSGI applications and servers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198288 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||189338 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 198287] Review Request: python-paste - Tools for using a Web Server Gateway Interface stack
Please 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-paste - Tools for using a Web Server Gateway Interface stack https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198287 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||189338 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 198284] Review Request: python-configobj - Config file reading, writing, and validation
Please 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-configobj - Config file reading, writing, and validation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198284 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||189338 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 198816] Review Request: gfs-utils - global file system userland utilities
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gfs-utils - global file system userland utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198816 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-14 11:46 EST --- Thanks, this has been fixed. New files are here: http://people.redhat.com/cfeist/gfs-utils.spec http://people.redhat.com/cfeist/gfs-utils-0.1.0-0.fc6.1.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 198879] Review Request: kdnssd-avahi
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdnssd-avahi https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198879 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-14 12:07 EST --- Ok from a tech persepctive. -- 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 198835] Review Request: Atlas-C++ - WorldForge message protocol library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Atlas-C++ - WorldForge message protocol library Alias: Atlas-C++ https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198835 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-14 12:46 EST --- I'm concerned about the potential for conflict with the existing atlas package in Extras: The ATLAS (Automatically Tuned Linear Algebra Software) project is an ongoing research effort focusing on applying empirical techniques in order to provide portable performance. At present, it provides C and Fortran77 interfaces to a portably efficient BLAS implementation, as well as a few routines from LAPACK. The current naming makes this package look like it supplies C++ bindings for atlas. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198922] New: Review Request: dejavu-lgc-fonts
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=198922 Summary: Review Request: dejavu-lgc-fonts Product: Fedora Core Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~behdad/fedora/dejavu-lgc-fonts/dejavu-lgc-fonts.spec SRPM URL: http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~behdad/fedora/dejavu-lgc-fonts/dejavu-lgc-fonts-2.7-1.src.rpm Description: The DejaVu LGC fonts are high-quality Latin/Greek/Cyrillic fonts based on Bitstream Vera fonts ((http://gnome.org/fonts/)). Its purpose is to provide a wider range of characters while maintaining the original look and feel. Discussion: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=170218 Matthias Clasen and I decided to only push the Latin/Greek/Cyrillic version into core. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198922] Review Request: dejavu-lgc-fonts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: dejavu-lgc-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198922 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-14 12:53 EST --- Lacks fontconfig configuration right now. Working on it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195363] Review Request: esc and esc-xulrunner-devel
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: esc and esc-xulrunner-devel https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195363 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED])| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-14 13:12 EST --- Thanks for the comments: Yes, esc-xulrunner-devel is only needed for esc to build against. Also ESC privately deploys the xulrunner directory which is output by the xulrunner build. It would be no big deal to simply build xulrunner as part of the ESC build. As for the nsinstall problem I have not seen that here. Have you any log snippets of that build failure? -- 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 198881] Review Request: perl-POE-Filter-IRCD
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-POE-Filter-IRCD https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198881 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: perl-perl- |Review Request: perl-POE- |POE-Filter-IRCD |Filter-IRCD -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198882] Review Request: perl-POE-Component-IRC
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-POE-Component-IRC https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198882 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: perl-perl- |Review Request: perl-POE- |POE-Component-IRC |Component-IRC -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195363] Review Request: esc and esc-xulrunner-devel
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: esc and esc-xulrunner-devel https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195363 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-14 13:26 EST --- Created an attachment (id=132450) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=132450action=view) build log of failure It looks like it's assuming the esc-xulrunner-devel build dir is still around. -- 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 198829] Review Request: wfmath - WorldForge math libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: wfmath - WorldForge math libraries Alias: wfmath https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198829 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-14 13:33 EST --- (In reply to comment #1) MUST - Add Requires: pkgconfg to devel package - package does not contain a %check section - make check fails on 1 test, investigate why (FAIL: intstring_test) I'll contact upstream and see if they have a fix or explanation for this test failure. It seems to only fail on x86_64, not i386. I'll make a new package once the test failure is resolved. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198835] Review Request: Atlas-C++ - WorldForge message protocol library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Atlas-C++ - WorldForge message protocol library Alias: Atlas-C++ https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198835 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-14 13:51 EST --- (In reply to comment #1) -rpmlint output: W: Atlas-C++ undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libAtlasObjects-0.6.so.1.0.0 _ZNK5Atlas9Exception4whatEv ... rpmlint on FC4 x86_64 and FC5 i386 both missed this one. === MUST === - Add Requires: pkgconfig to devel package Done. - Comments say test fails on FC6, but infact it is failing on all x86_64 arches because of an x86_64 warning. Patch the code to not use -Werror so that checks can be run I think it would be better just to fix the test code and keep the -Werror. This might get sent upstream. - Fix linking of all the .so files, they should be linked with -lAtlas and libAtlas needs to be built first. I wonder if this is a smp_mflags build - Explain why you do not build with optional zlib or libbz2 Because I didn't notice the configure output? :) - README indicates that this package requires socket streams such as skstream, explain why this is not in the Requires It probably should be. But since the package that Requires: this one also Requires: skstream directly, I didn't catch this. - Why are man pages in doc/man not installed? Oversight. I've added most of them. Others are not included as they contain the build root path in the man page name (probably some doxygen artifact) - Should tutoral/ be installed? No. These are doxygen sources. The tutorial is included in %doc doc/html - Fix license to match actual license Fixed. - Fix Source0 URL so that I can actually verify the upstream source is 0.6.0 actually out yet? Works for me? - Why name Atlas-C++ instead of atlascpp? Because even though upstream uses both Atlas-C++ and atlas-cpp, the former best matches the actual tarball name. I'll post a new srpm once the tests have been fixed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196146] Review Request: mod_nss
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mod_nss https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196146 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-14 14:01 EST --- Additional review, based on new spec and details in comment #13: 1) The switch to %configure actually eliminates the need to pass --libdir, --sbindir and --sysconfdir (which based on ./configure --help, should actually be /etc, not /etc/httpd/conf.d). The %configure macro sets those automatically. So those three lines after %configure should be removed. 2) Going back to item 14 in comment #12 and #13... The 'create dummy files then replace in %post' trick I threw together actually does leave the files around when the RPM is removed, %config(noreplace) makes that happen. They're renamed w/an appended .rpmsave if the package is removed. # rpm -e mod_nss warning: /etc/httpd/alias/secmod.db saved as /etc/httpd/alias/secmod.db.rpmsave warning: /etc/httpd/alias/key3.db saved as /etc/httpd/alias/key3.db.rpmsave warning: /etc/httpd/alias/cert8.db saved as /etc/httpd/alias/cert8.db.rpmsave So this route leaves us not deleting the files, addressing your (very valid) concern and also makes them owned by the package. Win-win, no? :) 3) For consistency, you shouldn't have spaces between lines within a single %files section, I'd cut the extra lines after %defattr and %doc. 4) I poked around at the Makefile a bit to see if using make install was feasible. The main issue appears to be that 'make install' uses apxs to put the module in place, but apxs tries to be too smart for its own good, and install and activate the module in the buildhost's httpd, rather than in the buildroot. Would require a bit of Makefile hacking to get a viable 'make install', so putting the bits in place by hand is understandable and acceptable. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198839] Review Request: sear - WorldForge client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sear - WorldForge client Alias: sear https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198839 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-14 14:10 EST --- (In reply to comment #3) it wont start without having wfut installed and we also need a media package for offline usage (e.g. world building purposes) Darn. I forgot about wfut. I have a package based on the cvs sources that you can use to test sear, but it's probably best to wait for upstream to release an official tarball. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198835] Review Request: Atlas-C++ - WorldForge message protocol library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Atlas-C++ - WorldForge message protocol library Alias: Atlas-C++ https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198835 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-14 14:26 EST --- (In reply to comment #1) -rpmlint output: W: Atlas-C++ undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libAtlasObjects-0.6.so.1.0.0 Which dist and version of rpmlint (rpm -q rpmlint) are you running that produced this warning? I can't reproduce it on FC4-x86_64 or FC5-i386. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198835] Review Request: Atlas-C++ - WorldForge message protocol library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Atlas-C++ - WorldForge message protocol library Alias: Atlas-C++ https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198835 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-14 14:30 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) I'm concerned about the potential for conflict with the existing atlas package in Extras: ... The current naming makes this package look like it supplies C++ bindings for atlas. Upstream's name is unfortunate in this sense, but I think it's better to preserve upstream's naming than to change it to something different. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198834] Review Request: sage - OpenGL extensions library using SDL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: sage - OpenGL extensions library using SDL
Alias: sage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198834
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-14 14:56 EST ---
(In reply to comment #1)
MUST
- devel package should Requires: pkgconfig
Done.
- use %{_mandir} instead of %{_datadir}/man
Done.
- notify upstream about --disable-static failure
I don't think all configure scripts support --disable-static anyway. I'll just
remove the flag and the comment.
- fix license to match upstream license
Fixed.
- had to download source from:
http://dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/worldforge/sage-0.1.2.tar.gz
Source0 should be updated accordingly
The current URL works for me? This might be caused by some SF mirror selection
nonsense. It seems that some mirrors insert 'sourceforge/' into the download
url paths.
SHOULD =
- add a %check even though it doesnt do anything now, it may in future
Done.
http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/sage-0.1.2-2.src.rpm
http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/sage.spec
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197967] Review Request: gkrellm - Multiple stacked system monitors in one process
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: gkrellm - Multiple stacked system monitors in one
process
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197967
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-14 14:57 EST ---
(In reply to comment #1)
I'm a firm believer in that users/groups created by packages should *not* be
erased when the package is removed, and won't set myself as the reviewer
because
of that. Let me know if you're willing to leave them behind when erasing
-daemon, and I'll take care of the review.
Sure, that sounds reasonable, how does one pick up the leftover user when the
user decides to reinstall the package later?
Anyway, a couple of comments:
The switch to lm_sensors means that ppc will need special treatment, as
lm_sensors is not (nor obviously -devel) available for it. ExcludeArch: ppc
would sound like a regression.
That patch was written in communicatiopn with upstream and is going to appear in
the next upstream release. All the changes are wrapped in #ifdef
HAVE_LIBSENSORS, hence the adding of -DHAVE_LIBSENSORS to CFLAGS. I'll make the
adding off that conditionally with %ifarch, does that sound ok?
-daemon has grown a Provides: gkrellm-server for no apparent reason, and
-daemon has become self-obsoleting because of that, which may or may not cause
problems. I'd suggest removing it and adding a
$some_known_version-$release
to Obsoletes: gkrellm-server.
Erm rpmlint complains without it. I'll remove the Provides. Are you sure this
makes a package self obsoleting?
There's a mismatch between %install and %files where the former uses various
hardcoded paths while the latter uses macros (at least /etc vs
%{_sysconfdir}).
I'll do a new version with %{_sysconfdir} everywhere + other fixes once I've got
a reply to my above remarks / questions.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198922] Review Request: dejavu-lgc-fonts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: dejavu-lgc-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198922 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-14 15:10 EST --- Tech ack. Are we not obsoleting Vera? Out of curiousity, what locales does this give us *new* coverage with, outside of Greek? -- 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 198287] Review Request: python-paste - Tools for using a Web Server Gateway Interface stack
Please 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-paste - Tools for using a Web Server Gateway Interface stack https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198287 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-14 15:13 EST --- I had that for my Paste packaging attempt: # clean docs directory pushd docs rm StyleGuide.txt *.css */*.css rebuild doc.conf template.tmpl */*.js popd rpmlint has some errors that should certainly be fixed: E: python-paste non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/paste/util/scgiserver.py 0644 E: python-paste non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/paste/debug/doctest_webapp.py 0644 For scgiserver.py I believe it should be patched to have the shebang removed. For doctest_webapp.py it isn't obvious, maybe it can be run standalone, in that case the permissions should be fixed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198928] New: Review Request: main package name here
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198928 Summary: Review Request: main package name here Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/coldwell/lsscsi.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/coldwell/lsscsi-0.17-2.src.rpm Description: Uses information provided by the sysfs pseudo file system in Linux kernel 2.6 series to list SCSI devices or all SCSI hosts. Includes a classic option to mimic the output of cat /proc/scsi/scsi that has been widely used prior to the lk 2.6 series. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198928] Review Request: lsscsi
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: lsscsi https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198928 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: main |Review Request: lsscsi |package name here | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197826] Review Request: perl-IO-Socket-SSL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-IO-Socket-SSL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197826 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|188267 |188268 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-14 16:11 EST --- Looks good. approving. Adding to dist. -- 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 196146] Review Request: mod_nss
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: mod_nss
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196146
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-14 16:21 EST ---
(In reply to comment #5)
2. Ok, you've convinved me. I made a few minor changes though. When
determining
if we need to generate a database we only need to check one of the files. They
do not stand alone but work together in concert, so if one is temporary it is
safe to assume they all are. I switched to checking key3.db since that is the
most important file.
I also modified the deletion install test. I'm using if [ $1 -eq 0 ] which
from the RPM docs means Remove last version of package. I tested it and it
seems to work ok for me.
Heh, actually, no it doesn't. :)
$1 being 0 isn't possible in the %post context, only %postun and %preun, see
Running scriptlets only in certain situations at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines. RPM itself does the work
that you're seeing, renaming them with .rpmsave. I added that extra little bit
for the edge case where the user has no mod_nss rpm installed, but does have the
.db files there, then installs the rpm, so they wouldn't be overwritten by
%post. It probably makes more sense to do nothing at all in %post on install if
we find .db files that don't have that temp string in them -- then we just end
up with .rpmnew files and the existing .db files. Now that I ponder it, I think
this makes the most sense for that section:
umask 077
if [ $1 -eq 1 ] ; then
if [ `grep -c temporary file %{_sysconfdir}/httpd/alias/key3.db` -eq 1 ];
then
rm -f %{_sysconfdir}/httpd/alias/{secmod,cert8,key3}.db
%{_sbindir}/gencert %{_sysconfdir}/httpd/alias
%{_sysconfdir}/httpd/alias/install.log 21
echo
echo %{name} certificate database generated.
echo
fi
fi
Results on install with this tweak:
rpm -ivh /build/RPMS/x86_64/mod_nss-1.0.3-1.fc5.x86_64.rpm
Preparing...### [100%]
1:mod_nsswarning: /etc/httpd/alias/cert8.db created as
/etc/httpd/alias/cert8.db.rpmnew
warning: /etc/httpd/alias/key3.db created as /etc/httpd/alias/key3.db.rpmnew
warning: /etc/httpd/alias/secmod.db created as /etc/httpd/alias/secmod.db.rpmnew
### [100%]
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198837] Review Request: eris - Client-side session layer for Atlas-C++
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: eris - Client-side session layer for Atlas-C++ Alias: eris https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198837 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-14 16:36 EST --- (In reply to comment #1) MUST - Remove pkgconfig from BuildRequries, this should be picked up by the devel packages - Fix changelog version number - outpu in description should be output fixed, fixed, and fixed. - Why is glib-2.0 not added in BuildRequires? I didn't see that it made any difference during the build, but I guess upstream has it there for a reason. Added. - Add a %check section Added. The first time I ran this on FC4-x86_64 in mock, the tests hung. The next few times it was ok. I'll keep an eye on the build system and disable the tests if they cause problems. - %doc in devel should be docs/html/* Fixed. http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/eris-1.3.11-2.src.rpm http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/eris.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196146] Review Request: mod_nss
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mod_nss https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196146 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-14 16:53 EST --- Files updated. Ok, this method works for me. I think that the only time the rpmnew files would be if someone went in and created a database BEFORE installing mod_nss for the first time. I consider this fairly unlikely. And even so, there will be no data loss. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198831] Review Request: varconf - Configuration library used by WorldForge apps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: varconf - Configuration library used by WorldForge apps Alias: varconf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198831 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-14 17:27 EST --- (In reply to comment #1) MUST - devel package should have Requires: pkgconfig - make check should use smp flags - make check should be patched to work, (not ||:) all you need to do is add #include assert.h once conftest is created, you need to: cd tests ; ./conftest conf.cfg - fix license to match actual upstream license All fixed: http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/varconf-0.6.4-2.src.rpm http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/varconf.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189886] Review Request: FluidSynth - Real-time software synthesizer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: FluidSynth - Real-time software synthesizer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189886 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-14 17:35 EST --- Looks good, 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 196591] Review Request: bitlbee
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bitlbee https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196591 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-14 17:39 EST --- This (longish) message during ./configure worries me: --- No detection code exists for OpenSSL. Make sure that you have a complete install of OpenSSL (including devel/header files) before reporting compilation problems. Also, keep in mind that the OpenSSL is, according to some people, not completely GPL-compatible. Using GnuTLS or NSS is recommended and better supported by us. However, on many BSD machines, OpenSSL can be considered part of the operating system, which makes it GPL-compatible. For more info, see: http://www.openssl.org/support/faq.html#LEGAL2 http://www.gnome.org/~markmc/openssl-and-the-gpl.html Please note that distributing a BitlBee binary which links to OpenSSL is probably illegal. If you want to create and distribute a binary BitlBee package, you really should use GnuTLS or NSS instead. Also, the OpenSSL license requires us to say this: *This product includes software developed by the OpenSSL Project *for use in the OpenSSL Toolkit. (http://www.openssl.org/) --- The prototypical casual observer in me asks, Wouldn't it be better to compile this against gnutls? If there are compelling reasons to compile against openssl, I suspect FE-LEGAL should be blocked by this bug as well. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197981] Review Request: gkrellm-wifi - Wireless monitor plugin for the GNU Krell Monitors
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gkrellm-wifi - Wireless monitor plugin for the GNU Krell Monitors https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197981 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||197967 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197967] Review Request: gkrellm - Multiple stacked system monitors in one process
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gkrellm - Multiple stacked system monitors in one process https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197967 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||197981 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 196591] Review Request: bitlbee
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bitlbee https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196591 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||182235 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-14 18:11 EST --- IMHO neither GnuTLS nor NSS are providing the same like OpenSSL, otherwise we wouldn't ship OpenSSL within Core, right? What is the (possible) legal problem you are seeing? At least from my personal understanding any binary linking to OpenSSL could be illegal when the local law conflicts with encryption. For me this sounds similar like at the mp3 stuff... I'm building per default using OpenSSL, because every Fedora Core user has this package installed and it is used by many applications (rpm -e --test openssl). If possible, I want to cause less new dependencies and I also don't want to force FE users to install another package/library when the already available one does the same. Blocking FE-Legal now, waiting for official response because of the probably illegal, even when I can't see any real reason. Somebody of the legal people has to remove this blocking when it's resolved. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198834] Review Request: sage - OpenGL extensions library using SDL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sage - OpenGL extensions library using SDL Alias: sage https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198834 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-14 22:51 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) - notify upstream about --disable-static failure I don't think all configure scripts support --disable-static anyway. I'll just remove the flag and the comment. 1. All autoconf-based packages must accept all --disable/enable flags. This package does. 2. This package supports --disable-static (==--enable-static=no) ./configure --help .. --enable-static[=PKGS] build static libraries [default=yes] .. 3. I do not see that --disable-static would not work for this package. BLOCKER: The package does not honor RPM_OPT_FLAGS correctly. It appends -O3 to CFLAGS. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198878] Review Request: mutagen - Python module to handle audio metadata
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: mutagen - Python module to handle audio metadata
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198878
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-15 01:01 EST ---
== Not an official review as I'm not yet sponsored ==
Mock build for rawhide i386 is sucessfull
* MUST Items:
- rpmlint shows errors as
E: mutagen no-binary
W: mutagen wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/mutagen-1.5.1/TUTORIAL
E: mutagen non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/mutagen/__init__.py 0644
- dist tag is present.
- The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
- The spec file name matching the base package mutagen, in the
format mutagen.spec.
- This package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
- The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
- The package is licensed with an open-source compatible license GPL.
- This package includes License file COPYING.
- This source package includes the text of the license in its own file,and
that file, containing the text of the license for the package is included in
%doc.
- The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. md5sum is correct
(9ce5d5f14e02f2eabd919d6bdaebadbc)
- This package successfully compiled and built into binary rpms for i386
architecture.
- This package did not containd any ExcludeArch.
- This package owns all directories that it creates.
- This package did not contain any duplicate files in the %files
listing.
- This package have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
- This package used macros.
- Document files are included like COPYING, NEWS, README, TUTORIAL.
- Package did NOT contained any .la libtool archives.
Also,
* Source URL is present and working.
* BuildRoot is correct BuildRoot:
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
What you Need to Do:-
I think you dont need following line if you are building for only fc5
Requires: python-abi = %(%{__python} -c import sys ; print sys.version[:3])
BuildRequires: python-devel
also try to clean %files section of SPEC as
%files
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%doc COPYING NEWS README TUTORIAL
%{_bindir}/*
%{_mandir}/man*/*gz
%dir %{python_sitelib}/mutagen
%{python_sitelib}/mutagen/*.py
%{python_sitelib}/mutagen/*.pyc
%ghost %{python_sitelib}/mutagen/*.pyo
I removes those above Requires and modified %files as shown above and package
built without any problem.
For rpmlint errors,
E: mutagen no-binary
There is no mutagen named binary when i did python setup.py build in Source
W: mutagen wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/mutagen-1.5.1/TUTORIAL
I check TUTORIAL file but did not understood what is the problem.
E: mutagen non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/mutagen/__init__.py 0644
I found other python packages are also having same
__init__.py 0644 permissions. so why rpmlint report problem i confuesd?
can anyone comment on this issues?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194470] Review Request: php-magickwand
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-magickwand https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194470 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-15 01:10 EST --- Closing since this has been build for Development, currently its showing up in: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/PackageStatus As needs cleanup, so I'm cleaning up :) BTW, did you verify this package matches the recent released php packaging guidelines? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194470] Review Request: php-magickwand
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-magickwand https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194470 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|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 191492] Review Request: unuran-0.7.2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: unuran-0.7.2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191492 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-15 01:14 EST --- Neal, ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190045] Review Request: caps - A set of audio plugins for LADSPA
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: caps - A set of audio plugins for LADSPA https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190045 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-15 01:47 EST --- (In reply to comment #3) Without running any special script on the rpm, three orphaned directories can be spotted due to missing ownership or missing dependencies: /usr/lib/ladspa/ /usr/share/ladspa/ /usr/share/ladspa/rdf/ So should ladspa own /usr/lib/ladspa, /usr/share/ladspa and liblrdf own /usr/share/ladspa/rdf? This package could require those packages. The only weird thing is that apart from these directories, there are no other runtime dependencies on those things. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
