[Bug 197814] Review Request: autogen
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: autogen https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197814 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-16 05:51 EST --- 5.8.5. sorts out the libopts problem, but not the rename. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 165878] Review Request: kadu
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kadu https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=165878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC|fedora-extras- | |[EMAIL PROTECTED] | CC||fedora-package- ||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-16 06:51 EST --- If I would like to take over this package, I should create new bug or continue it here? -- 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] 2006-07-16 09:22 EST --- Re: comment #4 If there exists no upstream freetype-1.4pre1, then I suggest you change to a release that *does* exist. Re: comment #5, So, should I use Epoch instead? Like: Provides: freetype-utils = 1:1.4-0.1.pre imo, yes, this is better. (though epochs should usually be avoided when/if possible, I see no better alternative in this case to fix the previous hackage). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190156] Review Request: php-pear-HTTP
Please 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-pear-HTTP https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190156 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-16 10:27 EST --- Spec URL: http://remi.collet.free.fr/rpms/extras/php-pear-HTTP.spec Release 1.4.0-4 pushed to CVS (use the new /etc/rpm/macros.pear) Waiting for PHP guidelines before running the build. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2006-07-16 10:47 EST --- (In reply to comment #7) Re: comment #4 If there exists no upstream freetype-1.4pre1, then I suggest you change to a release that *does* exist. I don't agree. This is about a compatibility library that was last developed (the 1.x series) in 2000. I strongly believe that we should just continue to ship the exact same thing that we have been shipping so far in core, instead of archeology. There's absolute no advantage in switching over. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ 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] 2006-07-16 11:06 EST --- (Justifications aside) my point is that *I*, as reviewer, won't approve of any package for which there exists no (verifiable) upstream source. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ 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] 2006-07-16 12:10 EST --- (In reply to comment #9) (Justifications aside) my point is that *I*, as reviewer, won't approve of any package for which there exists no (verifiable) upstream source. What do you suggest I do, given that changing source is not an option? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197754] Review Request: perl-Perl6-Bible
Please 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-Perl6-Bible https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197754 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-16 13:03 EST --- This is an odd package; it's a Perl module, but it's really all documentation except for the tiny viewer script. I'm inclined to just treat it as any other perl module but it does seem a bit strange. More troubling is this: This Copyright applies only to the Perl6::Bible Perl software distribution, not the documents bundled within. and the documents within all seem to lack any kind of copyright information. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-07-16 14:41 EST --- (In reply to comment #9) Yes, || : should be added to condrestart. I agree, I've added all gkrellmd related scripts to use || : as is usual for scriptlets. Maybe we should update the wiki for this? And IMO the snippets page should be fixed to use the scripts directly, I see no benefit from using /sbin/service instead of them. Some people have mentioned that *not* using it makes it easier to get rid of initscripts altogether and to use another init system. I don't know the details and that wouldn't work without other changes anyway, so it's not a blocker. I have no opinion on this, I guess this should be discussed on f-e-l. Other issues: - Seems that there's no need to require the main package in -devel, nothing in it depends on anything in main, right? Agreed, fixed. - Desktop file has been renamed from gnome-gkrellm.desktop to fedora-gkrellm.desktop, which will break eg. buttons added to the KDE panel from menus using the add application to panel function, and I believe there are other similar problems in other desktops if that's done, so I suggest reverting the rename. Agreed, fixed. - Regression in desktop entry: StartupNotify=false prevents KDE's built-in startup notification from working. The key should be just removed. Done. - The default gkrellmd.conf uses proc as the group to drop privs to. That group doesn't exist, should probably be gkrellmd instead. Fixed. - groupadd should be done with the -r argument. Fixed. - The switch from the builtin sensors stuff to libsensors appears to break existing sensors configs, my configured sensors just disappeared from gkrellm (but reconfiguring the sensors worked). Would there be a sane way to prevent this? If not, not a blocker. I'm sorry but that would be very non-trivial to fix, it would probably require some kinda fuzzy logic and never work reliable in all cases - EWONTFIX Here is a new version: Spec URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/gkrellm.spec SRPM URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/gkrellm-2.2.9-7.src.rpm Changes: * Sun Jul 16 2006 Hans de Goede [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2.2.9-7 - Add -r to groupadd - Add || : to the gkrellmd service related scripts (deviation from the wiki). - Don't make -devel package require the main one as it doesn't need it - Install .desktop file with --vendor gnome to not break existing kde panel buttons, etc. - Drop StartupNotify=false from .desktop to not interfere with kde's internal startup notification - use gkrellmd as group in default gkrellmd.conf -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 174021] Review Request: aplus-fsf - Advanced APL 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: aplus-fsf - Advanced APL Interpreter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=174021 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-16 15:53 EST --- I asume, that is a 64 related problem. Unfortunately, I don't have a 64 bit system. It will be nice if anyone have a hint to solve the problem reported by Jason. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-16 15:58 EST --- I've added some '|| :'s to the service commands in the scriptlet snippets page, those are usual suspects for failing. 2.2.9-7 looks good, approved, also per discussion in the thread starting at http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2006-July/msg00012.html Karsten, FYI: gkrellm is ready to be imported to Extras, so it can be removed from Core devel soon. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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|163778 |163779 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2006-07-16 16:01 EST --- (In reply to comment #11) I've added some '|| :'s to the service commands in the scriptlet snippets page, those are usual suspects for failing. Good! 2.2.9-7 looks good, approved, also per discussion in the thread starting at http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2006-July/msg00012.html Thanks, I'll import it and request a build. Karsten, FYI: gkrellm is ready to be imported to Extras, so it can be removed from Core devel soon. Erm, hold on first gkrellm-wifi which is hiding in the same package in core must be approved too, see bug 197981. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-07-16 16:05 EST --- Erm, help gkrellm already is in CVS for RHL-8 and RHL-9, but no devel dir and the import script chokes because it already is in CVS. What now? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-16 16:24 EST --- Blockers: - Tarball is not upstream one, sha1sums: package: 52d13482f7ea71ca0f5613ac5209cbe7d8385f42 upstream: 45888e68822189bedb11e3d77e6d5e8eacb6d507 There are also substantial differences in their contents. - Missing dependency on gkrellm. Other notes/suggestions: - Add back ExcludeArch: s390 s390x like it was kind of in the FC package for benefit of folks who rebuild FE packages for example for RHEL. - A patch/sed one liner replacing unwanted stuff in CFLAGS with $RPM_OPT_FLAGS could be easier to maintain than copy-pasting all flags between Makefile and the specfile. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-16 16:32 EST --- Maybe ask for an empty devel branch in CVSSyncNeeded in Wiki, including a pointer to this report? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199029] Review Request: jokosher
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: jokosher
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199029
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-16 19:11 EST ---
According to Yum, gnonlin is not in Core, Updates, or Extras, so this package -
with regards to Extras - would not be self-supporting in that it would need a
dependency external to the default repositories. Perhaps you'd also want to
submit Gnonlin for inclusion into Extras as well?
Also, you should not use the Packager: tag in your spec. See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-c17fb8c1ce9be40da720a2b25d1e2a241062038f
Thirdly, your package would probably break on 64-bit systems, as you hardcode
/lib/ into the path of %_pythondir. Please use a macro for this instead, such as
%{_lib} (or %{_libdir}, etc. as needed).
Forth, you really should be using %{python_sitedir} and following the %files
section correctly as mentioned in Packaging/Python on the Wiki. See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python
Lastly, in the %changelog, you simply have a [EMAIL PROTECTED] identifier. I'm
not
certain, but I believe that this is supposed to be a full and valid email
address (such as [EMAIL PROTECTED] or something similar).
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 174021] Review Request: aplus-fsf - Advanced APL 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: aplus-fsf - Advanced APL Interpreter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=174021 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-16 22:48 EST --- Well, I don't think there's anything specifically 64-bit related here. What does rpmlint aplus-fsf tell you with the package installed on an i386 machine? (rpmlint 0.77 running in my build setup.) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194320] Review Request: im-chooser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: im-chooser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194320 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-16 23:53 EST --- For new one, Spec URL: http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/rpms/im-chooser/devel/im-chooser.spec?root=extrasrev=1.2view=auto SRPM URL: http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/extras/development/SRPMS/im-chooser-0.2.2-1.fc6.src.rpm Jesse, can you review the package to import this 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 197445] Review Request: fuse-convmvfs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: fuse-convmvfs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197445 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-17 00:47 EST --- 0.2.1 was released: http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/fuse-convmvfs/fuse-convmvfs-0.2.1.tar.gz?download -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2006-07-17 01:50 EST --- (In reply to comment #10) What do you suggest I do, given that changing source is not an option? There is an obvious solution: Use the latest official tarball as basis and provide a patch against it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
