[Bug 195666] Review Request: mod_fcgid
Please 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_fcgid https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195666 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-29 05:23 EST --- Another update. I've split the SELinux policy module off into a subpackage. This has the benefit for people not using SELinux that the main package has no dependency on selinux-policy, and installation time is reduced as there are no scriptlets to run. Packages (1.10-5) available in usual place: http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/mod_fcgid/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200630] New: Review Request: postgresql_autodoc - PostgreSQL AutoDoc Utility
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=200630 Summary: Review Request: postgresql_autodoc - PostgreSQL AutoDoc Utility 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://developer.postgresql.org/~devrim/rpms/other/postgresql_autodoc/postgresql_autodoc.spec SRPM URL: http://developer.postgresql.org/~devrim/rpms/other/postgresql_autodoc/postgresql_autodoc-1.25-2.src.rpm Description: This is a utility which will run through PostgreSQL system tables and returns HTML, Dot, Dia and DocBook XML which describes the database. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200630] Review Request: postgresql_autodoc - PostgreSQL AutoDoc Utility
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: postgresql_autodoc - PostgreSQL AutoDoc Utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200630 [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 200630] Review Request: postgresql_autodoc - PostgreSQL AutoDoc Utility
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: postgresql_autodoc - PostgreSQL AutoDoc Utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200630 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-29 06:42 EST --- Please ignore the rpmlint warning about the missing documentation; because there is no document inside tarball, even the license, todo, install, etc. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 178904] Review Request: Monodevelop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Monodevelop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178904 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-29 09:25 EST --- #54 I know they're needed to build, but at least on my test rig, they're not needed to run. I can certainly add them as R:s I'll report the throwback to the main mono package on the FC BZ for advice. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197353] Review Request: man-pages-fr - French man pages from the Linux Documentation Project
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: man-pages-fr - French man pages from the Linux Documentation Project https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197353 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-29 09:32 EST --- Spec URL: http://linuxelectronique.free.fr/download/fedora/5/SPECS/man-pages-fr.spec SRPM URL: http://linuxelectronique.free.fr/download/fedora/5/SRPMS/man-pages-fr-2.28.0-1.src.rpm %changelog * Sat Jul 29 2006 Alain Portal aportal AT univ-montp2 DOT fr 2.28.0-1 - Update to 2.28.0 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177583] Review Request: zaptel-kmod
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: zaptel-kmod https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177583 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-29 12:19 EST --- (In reply to comment #42) I'll forward the request for inclusion of this kernel-module to FESCo for approval, but I will do my best to prevent that this module get's into Extras as long as the plans says we don't want to get the driver merged upstream Which you realize would mean that we can't get a fully functioning asterisk (for people with zaptel hardware, which includes me) in Extras until somebody forks the kernel module development. I agree that Digium's development model leaves a bit to be desired (who needs to change the license of the kernel module anyway, and is that even legal?), but the fact is that zaptel is GPL, so is this really the right place to draw the proverbial line in the sand? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177583] Review Request: zaptel-kmod
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: zaptel-kmod
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177583
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-29 12:47 EST ---
(In reply to comment #43)
(In reply to comment #42)
Which you realize would mean [...]
Yes, I realized that. But there are 3rd party Fedora {Core|Extras} add-on repos
out there that have different requirements for kmods -- one could submitt it
there.
I agree that Digium's development model leaves a bit to be desired (who needs
to
change the license of the kernel module anyway, and is that even legal?),
The dual-licensing is not the problem afaics and afaik the details. For me it's
only the we don't want it upstream mentality. I think every module should be
in the kernel (see also http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/ols_2006_keynote.html )
and kmod in Extras are an interim solution to fill the timeframe until they get
upstream (and in an ideal world people would get their drivers merged into the
kernel as soon as they basically work) .
but
the fact is that zaptel is GPL, so is this really the right place to draw the
proverbial line in the sand?
Well, one kernel-developer is hightly respect thinks the line should be drawn
even earlier -- see Bug 189400 comment 9
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199784] Review Request: psycopg2 - A PostgreSQL database adapter for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: psycopg2 - A PostgreSQL database adapter for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199784
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-29 14:03 EST ---
NEEDSWORK
If you need some explanation of some of the blocker items, leave me a note here.
I'll be back online tonight (~8 hours)
MD5Sums:
f7806d7141403b062a7353341bb393b5 python-psycopg2-2.0.2-3.src.rpm
6c056b261782c51f53ceccbf86c08749 psycopg2-2.0.2.tar.gz
Blockers:
* Source must have a full URL.
* Package is licensed as GPL but should be GPL with exceptions (to allow
OpenSSL and libpq [postgreSQL] linkage).
* Why are you only installing the _psycopg.so file instead of the whole
distribution?
* The source package includes a Zope database adapter. Why not include it as
a subpackage?
* Package does not build on x86_64. The %install hardcodes the directory:
lib.linux-i686-%{pyver}
Why not use setup.py install?
Cosmetic:
* Since you already used python to extract the %{pyver} macro, there's no
need to use %{pyver} in this line:
python%{pyver} setup.py build
Good:
* Package is named according to the naming guidelines for python modules.
* Spec name matches the package name.
* Package includes a copy of the license.
* The package is licensed with an Open source license.
* Source matches upstream.
* Source matches upstream GPG signature for:
Federico Di Gregorio [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06468DEB.
* No locale files, therefore no need to run %find_lang.
* No shared libraries for the dynamic linker to find so no ldconfig run
necessary.
* Package is not relocatable.
* Package owns all directories it creates.
* Permissions set correctly.
* Package has a proper %clean.
* Uses macros consistenly except for python%{pyver} note above.
* Contains code, not content.
* %doc files do not affect runtime.
* No headers, pkgconfig files, or shared libraries so no -devel package.
* Subpackages require the exact NEVR of the base package.
* No .la files.
* Not a GUI app so no desktop file.
* Package builds on x86_64
Not yet checked:
* rpmlint
* Packaging Guidelines
* Buildrequires
* Requires
* doc subpackage
* Directory ownership.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199108] Review Request: gutenprint: Printer Drivers Package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gutenprint: Printer Drivers Package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||199254 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199254] Review Request: perl-perlmenu
Please 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-perlmenu https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199254 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||199108 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 199254] Review Request: perl-perlmenu
Please 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-perlmenu https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199254 [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 200374] Review Request: qstat - Real-time Game Server Status for Quake 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: qstat - Real-time Game Server Status for Quake servers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200374 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-29 15:47 EST --- GOOD * rpmlint output clean * Package and spec file name named appropriately * Artistic license ok, license file included * File matches upstream: ac3ce3dbed5248bd5738a4968460880e qstat-2.10.tar.gz * Spec file legible and in Am. English * Builds and packages in mock on FC4, FC5, and FC5, both i386 and x86_64 * Package provides list is sane * No BR: necessary * No locales * No shared libs * Not relocatable * Does not create any directories that it should own * No duplicate %files * File permissions ok * build root cleaned in %install and %clean as necessary * Contains code, not content * No need for -doc or -devel subpackages * No .la files created * Not a gui app; no .desktop file needed MUSTFIX === * %doc contains some unnecessary files that should be removed: COMPILE.txt Makefile* template/Makefile* NOTES = * There are a number of compiler warnings about pointer signedness that appear harmless. If you feel inclined, you could report these upstream. qstat.c:2912: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 6 of 'recvfrom' differ in signedness -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 183439] Review Request: papyrus (Canvas drawing library based on cairo/cairomm)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: papyrus (Canvas drawing library based on cairo/cairomm) Alias: papyrus https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=183439 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190189] Review Request: PyQt4: Python bindings for Qt4
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: PyQt4: Python bindings for Qt4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190189 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-29 18:03 EST --- Not building on x86_64: + /usr/bin/python configure.py -q /usr/bin/qmake4 Error: /usr/bin/qmake4 failed to create a makefile. Make sure you have a working Qt v4 qmake on your PATH or use the -q argument to explicitly specify a working Qt v4 qmake. Determining the layout of your Qt installation... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 183439] Review Request: papyrus (Canvas drawing library based on cairo/cairomm)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: papyrus (Canvas drawing library based on cairo/cairomm)
Alias: papyrus
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=183439
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-29 18:13 EST ---
Group:System Environment/Libraries
Would this be not better suited to Development/Libraries? System
Environment/Libs are really for the likes of glibc et al.
Need R: cairomm
%package devel
Requires: gtkmm24-devel = 2.8.0 cairomm-devel = 0.6.0 pkgconfig
doxygen graphviz
Once installed, do rpm -qa --requires package-name. This will give you the
requires for main and devel packages to run correctly. I seriously doubt it will
need anything past cairomm-devel
%install
%{__cp} -arv docs/reference .
%{__cp} -arv docs/gallery .
Should these not be included in the %docs part of %files? If they're not, where
are they supposed to be getting copied to? Are the permissions being kept
correctly?
%files
%{_libdir}/lib*.so.*
Niggle. How many libraries are being installed? If it's one, just expand it.
This makes reading the spec for us poor reviewers much simpler. If it's a pile
which can be globbed together, then %{_libdir}/libpap*.so.* is also okay.
%files devel
%{_bindir}/*-demo
I'd strongly recommend naming this
%doc ChangeLog reference gallery
This is confusing me. You've already copied reference and gallary somewhere -
why have you got this?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 183439] Review Request: papyrus (Canvas drawing library based on cairo/cairomm)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: papyrus (Canvas drawing library based on cairo/cairomm)
Alias: papyrus
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=183439
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-29 18:52 EST ---
Would this be not better suited to Development/Libraries?
I'm not sure. Most of the other libraries, similar to papyrus (gtkmm24,
libglademm26, libxml++, libgnomemm, et. al.) are under System Environment/
Libraries.
Maybe they're behind and need to be changed?
Need R: cairomm
The cairomm requires gets picked up by rpmbuild as a library requires.
I seriously doubt it will need anything past cairomm-devel
The papyrusgtk stuff will need gtkmm, and theres no dependency chain between
cairomm and gtkmm. pkgconfig is there since the autoconf configure requires it
to find gtkmm and cairomm.
%{__cp} -arv docs/reference .
%{__cp} -arv docs/gallery .
Should these not be included in the %docs part of %files?
%doc ChangeLog reference gallery
This is confusing me. You've already copied reference and gallary somewhere -
why have you got this?
This is done to move them into position so they appear in a better position for
the rpm. In the dist they're in:
docs/www/reference/
If I include them in the rpm without cp'ing they'd install as:
/usr/share/doc/papyrus-0.2.0-devel/docs/www/reference/
Doing it this way they install as:
/usr/share/doc/papyrus-0.2.0-devel/reference/
%files
%{_libdir}/lib*.so.*
%files devel
%{_bindir}/*-demo
The main reason I've done these is because I'm upstream on several libraries
and I've tried to generalize the templates a bit to make them maintainable by
autoconf (autoconf actually generates the specs).
I know it's a little general, but it allows me to apply one correction to all
the specs related to the libraries.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192052] Review Request: bitgtkmm (Gtkmm widgets for the bit 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: bitgtkmm (Gtkmm widgets for the bit library)
Alias: bitgtkmm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192052
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-29 18:56 EST ---
Ahh, good catch. %{__make} is probably better. I'll change it in papyrus too.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 182320] Review Request: gnome-build
Please 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-build https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=182320 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-29 19:04 EST --- Strange. I can't replicate this problem on either x86 or x86_64. I've fixed the space and tabs problem though. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191745] Review Request: sysprof-kmod - kernel module for the sysprof profiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sysprof-kmod - kernel module for the sysprof profiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191745 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-29 19:09 EST --- This is the response I got from the author which is, BTW, a Red Hat employee (though sysprof is not a Red Hat project): snippet from original email The reason I didn't reply is that the issue with the sysprof kernel module is a little tricky. Basically, the kernel developers I have talked to are saying that sysprof overlaps with the oprofile module, so I haven't attempted getting it upstream. One possibility is that I port sysprof to use the oprofile module, but there are some issues with that as well. end snippet Moreover, I was told it already exists a proof of concept of the latter solution (using the oprofile module), so chances are the kmod could go away in a reasonable timeframe. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 183322] Review Request: conexus (network and serial I/O library with Gtkmm widgets)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: conexus (network and serial I/O library with Gtkmm widgets) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=183322 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-29 19:14 EST --- New release. Here are the new files: Spec Name or Url: http://miskatonic.cs.nmsu.edu/pub/conexus.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://miskatonic.cs.nmsu.edu/pub/fedora/5/srpms/conexus-0.2.1-1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 183439] Review Request: papyrus (Canvas drawing library based on cairo/cairomm)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: papyrus (Canvas drawing library based on cairo/cairomm) Alias: papyrus https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=183439 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-29 19:19 EST --- Would this be not better suited to Development/Libraries? I'm not sure. Most of the other libraries, similar to papyrus (gtkmm24, libglademm26, libxml++, libgnomemm, et. al.) are under System Environment/ Libraries. I remember now... System Environment/Libraries is for the runtime stuff. Development/Libraries are for the devel packages. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 183439] Review Request: papyrus (Canvas drawing library based on cairo/cairomm)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: papyrus (Canvas drawing library based on cairo/cairomm) Alias: papyrus https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=183439 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-29 19:24 EST --- Will a package really need pkgconfig to run once it's installed? Ahhh, I see. It's in the Requires for the devel package. I'll remove it and the doxygen and graphviz depends. Now that the docs are in the dist, doxygen and graphviz aren't even build requires anymore. Can you place a comment in the spec file which says why you're doing the cp please? It will help. Good idea. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 183322] Review Request: conexus (network and serial I/O library with Gtkmm widgets)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: conexus (network and serial I/O library with Gtkmm
widgets)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=183322
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-29 19:31 EST ---
make DESTDIR=%{buildroot} install
Again, be consistent with your macros
%{__rm} -rf %{buildroot}%{_bindir}
Why?
%{__cp} -arv docs/reference/html .
As with papyrus, can you include a comment on this
%{_libdir}/pkgconfig/*
No. For pkgconfig please use the name of the spec. I know you're using generic
templates for these, but where possible, include the names of libraries,
binaries and spec files.
%configure --enable-static=no
(niggle) %configure --disable-static not permitted (usually is)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192052] Review Request: bitgtkmm (Gtkmm widgets for the bit 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: bitgtkmm (Gtkmm widgets for the bit library) Alias: bitgtkmm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192052 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-29 19:42 EST --- Builds fine in mock. However. Blocker : For the devel, you need to add bitgtkmm to the Requires list Blocker : run rpm -qa --requires on the installed bitgtkmm. Quite a lot of the output are for standard libs, but you cannot rely on people having gtkmm installed (or a few of the others) Fix these and we should be good to go (more or less!) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192052] Review Request: bitgtkmm (Gtkmm widgets for the bit 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: bitgtkmm (Gtkmm widgets for the bit library)
Alias: bitgtkmm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192052
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-29 20:07 EST ---
8--
It's there. It's in the standard devel line, right above the specific requires
that I add for bitgtkmm:
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
--8
D'oh!
8--
Blocker : run rpm -qa --requires on the installed bitgtkmm. Quite a lot of the
output are for standard libs, but you cannot rely on people having gtkmm
installed (or a few of the others)
Those are all added by rpmbuild.
--8
No. These are packages required to run. Say I didn't have atkmm on my machine
(just as an example). Without the R atkmm being explictly states in the spec
file, the package would know no better until it gets to a point that atkmm is
needed and then it falls over dead.
I had a similar problem with Anjuta-1.2.4a a while back in that gtkmm was not in
as an explicit R. However, when you came to try and create a gtkmm package, the
software complained like crazy. Add the R line for gtkmm and everything was
happy again.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
