[Bug 201551] Review Request: db4o
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: db4o
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201551
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-08 03:07 EST ---
E: db4o no-binary
The package should be of the noarch architecture because it doesn't contain
any binaries.
I'll change that.
E: db4o only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
There are only non binary files in /usr/lib so they should be in /usr/share.
Mono packages aren't sane when it comes to this and until mono is fixed, this
one can be ignored
* documentation takes up 75% of the installed size, -docs subpackage is
necessary
Not a problem - I did that with XaraLX
i.e. mono(System) and mono(mscorlib) are provided by mono-core
* documentation takes up 75% of the installed size, -docs subpackage is
necessary
It needs mono-core as a R and mono-devel as a BR.
* package doesn't meet packaging guidelines
- {_prefix}/%{_lib} vs. %{_libdir}, See
Permitted for the time being - have a look at the mono packaging guidelines
* Also, I don't like the use of sed where tr -d would suffice.
I'm not sure that's a blocker though
I'll fix the docs and noarch and upload a new spec file. Thanks for the review
up to 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 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-08 03:27 EST --- Regarding movong docs from /usr/share/gutenprint/doc to /usr/share/doc/gutenprint, I'd only attempt that if there's a configure option for doing ot; otherwise you may find that any built-in documentation references in the software may point to the wrong place. Regarding --disable-static: this needs to be looked at carefully; building, installing, and rebuilding is a non-starter as far as packaging is concerned. Regarding splitting off separate packages for each language: take at look at how it's done in gcompris: http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/gcompris/gcompris.spec?root=extrasview=markup -- 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 201551] Review Request: db4o
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: db4o
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201551
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-08 03:49 EST ---
I don't know which mono packaging guidelines you've been reading, but those I
pointed you to (from the Mono SIG page) say to use %{_libdir} and nothing else.
They also say those rpmlint errors are to be ignored, so I don't understand why
you want to make it a noarch package. Mono packages aren't supposed to be
noarch, according to those guidelines. I've already said that.
About Requires: mono-core - it's not necessary, as I've already said. Please
read what I have written.
Using sed instead of my preferred tr -d isn't a blocker, yes.
--
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 201551] Review Request: db4o
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: db4o
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201551
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-08 04:13 EST ---
I don't know which mono packaging guidelines you've been reading, but those I
pointed you to (from the Mono SIG page) say to use %{_libdir} and nothing else.
See what happens when you build on x86_64 and you'll see why %{_prefix}/lib is
permissable. Until such time that mono is fixed (that is, on x86 builds to
/usr/lib and x86_64 builds to /usr/lib64) either upstream or for FC, the only
100% guaranteed method for others to be able to pick it up is to statically
define where things go. This has been accepted in the short term (have a look at
every other mono package registered to me and you'll see exactly the same hack
is applied)
They also say those rpmlint errors are to be ignored, so I don't understand why
you want to make it a noarch package. Mono packages aren't supposed to be
noarch, according to those guidelines. I've already said that.
Normally on a mono package, the executable is in /usr/lib/package_name with a
symlink back to %{_bindir} and so rpmlint moans. What has happened here is I was
in a rush to get out to get to work and have misread what you've said.
Requires : mono-core, point taken.
--
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 201551] Review Request: db4o
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: db4o https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201551 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-08 04:26 EST --- Spec URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/db4o.spec Addresses #2 Not uploaded a new src.rpm - there is no difference other than the spec file. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201674] New: Review Request: codeblocks
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=201674 Summary: Review Request: codeblocks 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://fedora.danny.cz/codeblocks.spec SRPM URL: http://fedora.danny.cz/codeblocks-1.0-0.1.2824svn.src.rpm Description: Code::Blocks is a free C++ IDE built specifically to meet the most demanding needs of its users. It was designed, right from the start, to be extensible and configurable. Built around a plugin framework, Code::Blocks can be extended with plugin libs. It includes a plugin wizard, so you can compile your own plugins. Notes: - rpmlint output is clean, there are only false positives (about no doc in subpackages and *.c and *.h files in main package, but they are used as templates for new projects) - there is a patch (codeblocks-plugins.patch) to install plugins not under /usr/share/codeblocks but in /usr/lib/codeblocks - a hack to disarm the rpath is applied as patch (codeblocks-rpath.patch) after running autotools - builds in devel on i386 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201656] Review Request: gstm-1.2
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: gstm-1.2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201656 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |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 199405] Review Request: vtk - The Visualization Toolkit - A high level 3D visualization 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: vtk - The Visualization Toolkit - A high level 3D visualization library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199405 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-08 05:02 EST --- (In reply to comment #11) I can't reproduce that on my builds (see http://ATrpms.net/name/vtk/ for binary builds for several platforms). What distro/arch and build tool did you use? I have the same rpmlint error with http://dl.atrpms.net/all/vtk-5.0.1-10.fc5.90.at.i386.rpm I'm on rawhide rpmlint-0.77-1.fc6 it only shows up when running rpmlint against the installed 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 200551] Review Request: cachefilesd
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: cachefilesd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200551 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-08 05:06 EST --- I'm a bit confused, if its not a Requires of something, nor in Comps anyplace, how will a user actually install it? That means we need to update the installer? -- 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 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-08 05:14 EST --- (In reply to comment #30) I will prefer not to move docs from /usr/share/gutenprint/doc to /usr/share/doc/gutenprint. Hmmm, we don't seem to have anything in the guidelines for this AFAICS. But IMHO all docs should be marked as %doc and thus should land in /usr/share/doc/packagename-version-release (the proper place used by all other packages) Maybe we need to add such a rule :-/ -- 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-08 05:22 EST --- The question is: are these files docs or are they data? I don't know in this specific instance because I don't know the package, but many apps with GUI front ends have built-in ways to access their docs, which are expected to be in the place they're configured with. Marking them as %doc and/or moving them elsewhere could cause this built-in means of accessing the docs to fail, which would violate the rule: MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. -- 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-08 05:38 EST --- (In reply to comment #31) (In reply to comment #30) I will prefer not to move docs from /usr/share/gutenprint/doc to /usr/share/doc/gutenprint. Hmmm, we don't seem to have anything in the guidelines for this AFAICS. But IMHO all docs should be marked as %doc and thus should land in /usr/share/doc/packagename-version-release (the proper place used by all other packages) Maybe we need to add such a rule :-/ Sure if you think like that. Primary looking at package said me that let that doc files be in /usr/share/gutenprint/doc Then i check under /usr/share on my system using find . -name doc * and i got following output ./sane/xsane/doc ./cups/doc ./apps/quanta/doc ./sgml/docbook/xsl-stylesheets-1.69.1-5/htmlhelp/doc ./scrollkeeper/doc ./vim/vim70/doc ./eclipse/plugins/org.python.pydev_0.9.3/PySrc/ThirdParty/logilab/common/doc ./eclipse/plugins/org.python.pydev_0.9.3/PySrc/ThirdParty/logilab/pylint/doc ./pear/doc ./gutenprint/doc where some of the entries belongs to Fedora Core packages. So it looks to me that either we have different strategy for Fedora Extras or we have some Guidelines that will require a major changes when a package moves from Fedora Extras to Fedora Core. Then i would like to see that Guidelines page. -- 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 199405] Review Request: vtk - The Visualization Toolkit - A high level 3D visualization 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: vtk - The Visualization Toolkit - A high level 3D visualization library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199405 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-08 05:50 EST --- Also the .so associated with Python and Tcl may not be necessary if no program should link against those libraries. This way it may become possible to remove the dependency of the devel package on the python and tcl subpackages. -- 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-08 05:51 EST --- The files in /usr/share/gutenprint/doc appear to me to be %doc and won't affect runtime. The reference-html subdir should be in gutenprint-devel, as it's titled The Developer's Guide to Gutenprint. Same with gutenprint.pdf. Using gutenprint in gimp 2.2.12 has an About button, but no Help button (with the docs in /usr/share/gutenprint/doc). gutenprint-users-manual.odt (OpenDocument Text) and gutenprint-users-manual.pdf should be in the main package's %doc, AFAICT. Parag, I'm not certain about --disable-static, but this package sure seems to warn 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
[Bug 199405] Review Request: vtk - The Visualization Toolkit - A high level 3D visualization 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: vtk - The Visualization Toolkit - A high level 3D visualization library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199405 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-08 05:53 EST --- Some days ago my rpmlint on FC5 even refused to recognize the objformat in FC6 and I have seen similar reports in bugzilla. Now it will pass the FC6 packages with the same output like the FC5 packages. Maybe this is an rpmlint false alarm? [EMAIL PROTECTED] doesn't show any undefined weak symbols, neither on FC5 builds, not FC6. it only shows up when running rpmlint against the installed rpm. OK, I can't test that at the moment only external rpmlint application is possible for me. But that sounds like an rpmlint bug the more. The output should be the same whether applied on an external package or on an installed one. Did you invoke an example on rawhide? Did the executable puke on missing sqrt? That would display whether the rpmlint error is flase or not. It looks strange, but for the pupose of the review I wouldn't invest more time into understanding latest rawhide and rpmlint changes. FWIW I'm rebuilding all of ATrpms with a disttag of fc5.91 for test2. Maybe it makes a difference, let's see. -- 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 199405] Review Request: vtk - The Visualization Toolkit - A high level 3D visualization 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: vtk - The Visualization Toolkit - A high level 3D visualization library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199405 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-08 06:18 EST --- (In reply to comment #14) OK, I can't test that at the moment only external rpmlint application is possible for me. It is not a blocker, it is just an information that something could be ameliorated upstream (and there may be portability issues, but that's not our problem). But that sounds like an rpmlint bug the more. The output should be the same whether applied on an external package or on an installed one. No, it can't. Basically rpmlint invokes ldd -d -r on libs. Did you invoke an example on rawhide? Did the executable puke on missing sqrt? That would display whether the rpmlint error is flase or not. If I recall well, on fedora the weak symbols don't break executables, but prelinking is less efficient. It looks strange, but for the pupose of the review I wouldn't invest more time into understanding latest rawhide and rpmlint changes. FWIW I'm rebuilding all of ATrpms with a disttag of fc5.91 for test2. Maybe it makes a difference, let's see. I guess it won't, but as I said above it is just a remark. Ville explains all that here: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-July/msg00569.html -- 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 175047] Review Request: NetworkManager-openvpn
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: NetworkManager-openvpn https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=175047 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-08 06:34 EST --- Created an attachment (id=133778) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=133778action=view) SELinux policy modules for NetworkManager-openvpn Please try the attached SELinux policy modules (myNetworkManager and myopenvpn), which should allow NetworkManager to run openvpn under SELinux. For details of how to build modules: http://www.city-fan.org/tips/BuildSeLinuxPolicyModules To install the modules once built: # semodule -i myNetworkManager.pp -i myopenvpn.pp -- 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 178003] Review Request: tetex-lambda-jp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tetex-lambda-jp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |NEEDINFO_REPORTER -- 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 177860] Review Request: libXvMCW - A Wrapper for run-time loading of XvMC 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: libXvMCW - A Wrapper for run-time loading of XvMC libraries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177860 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-08 07:11 EST --- I agree that there isn't much point in getting that package in extras, as you also agree, could you please close the bug? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201551] Review Request: db4o
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: db4o
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201551
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-08 07:16 EST ---
Ok, upon further reading I see that you're right about %{_libdir}, though the
guidelines say it is a temporary solution.
However, you still haven't addressed my concerns about installing a precompiled
binary. In particular, /usr/lib/mono/gac/db4o/*/db4o.dll (installed) is binary
identical to db4o-5.5/dll/db4o.dll (shipped). The guidelines
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Mono#head-1d3454f431ec1c8761eb46582e7f66bbddc1fd08
say explicitly that All packages must build from source.
And I'd like you to name the docs package db4o-doc, not db4o-docs, as this
naming seems to be more common among extras 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 201551] Review Request: db4o
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: db4o https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201551 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-08 07:31 EST --- This package is built from the source. It's simple enough to fix this problem, just %exclude it. That said, I have unearthed a slightly more sinister problem... Spec URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/db4o.spec Fixes the problems in #7 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 199405] Review Request: vtk - The Visualization Toolkit - A high level 3D visualization 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: vtk - The Visualization Toolkit - A high level 3D visualization library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199405 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-08 07:32 EST --- Thanks for the pointer, now I understand the issue a bit better and it's reproducable even on FC5, so nothing is rawhide-relavant. Since it only occurs in a part that is anyway under investigation of being cropped I'll defer that until it's clear what happens to vtkmpeg2encode. -- 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 178162] Review Request: libgeotiff
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libgeotiff https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178162 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-08 07:39 EST --- I sent a mail to the debian gdal maintainers about the licensing issue and put all of you who appear in the report as blind carbon copies -- 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 177232] Review Request: regionset - reads/sets the region code of DVD drives
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: regionset - reads/sets the region code of DVD drives https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177232 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-08 07:41 EST --- *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 182440] Review Request: fcgi - High-performance Fast CGI engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: fcgi - High-performance Fast CGI engine https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=182440 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added QAContact|fedora-extras- |fedora-package- |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |NEEDINFO_REPORTER -- 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 177211] Review Request: newsx - NNTP news exchange 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: newsx - NNTP news exchange utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177211 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-08 07:47 EST --- *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 201551] Review Request: db4o
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: db4o https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201551 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-08 08:08 EST --- Spec URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/db4o.spec SRPM URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/db4o-5.5-5.src.rpm I've removed the gacutil from the package as it's broken and added a devel (with .pc file) This now means that mcs foo.cs -pkg:db4o can now be used in much the same way as gtk-sharp needs to be used The tarball includes the .pc file -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201480] Review Request: perl-DateTime-Format-Builder
Please 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-DateTime-Format-Builder https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201480 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-08 08:10 EST --- For tests, missing BR: perl(Test::Pod) perl(Test::More) maybe perl(DTFB::OnFailTest) perl(DTFB::Quick) maybe Params::Validate = 0.72 since it is in Build.PL, but is it required for build? I guess so for tests? README and LICENCE missing from %doc -- 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] 2006-08-08 08:59 EST --- Comment from original author of postgresql_autodoc: I would like to know what text in the license made you, or Red Hat's lawyers, think it was restricted so that I can change it suitably. So? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-08 09:23 EST --- ok I have updated package Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/pnemade/gutenprint/gutenprint.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/pnemade/gutenprint/gutenprint-5.0.0-0.7.fc5.src.rpm I need review for this package. I have not donr any work on --disable-static issue as i need suggestions on that issue. * Wed Aug 09 2006 Parag Nemade [EMAIL PROTECTED]- 5.0.0-0.7 - Moved /usr/share/gutenprint/doc to %doc of main rpm and devel rpm - Additionally added API documents for gutenprint and gutenprintui2 * Tue Aug 08 2006 Parag Nemade [EMAIL PROTECTED]- 5.0.0-0.6 - Added cups-genppdupdate.5.0 at post section - Splitted gutenprint main rpm for separate languages -- 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 201493] Review Request: perl-Module-Starter-PBP
Please 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-Module-Starter-PBP https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201493 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-08 10:16 EST --- Missing BuildRequires for perl(Test::More) -- 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 201637] Review Request: CSpace p2p Instant Messenger
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: CSpace p2p Instant Messenger https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201637 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: CSpace p2p |Review Request: CSpace p2p |Instant Messenger |Instant Messenger Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||DUPLICATE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-08 10:21 EST --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 201636 *** -- 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 201636] Review Request: CSpace p2p Instant Messenger
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: CSpace p2p Instant Messenger https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201636 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: CSpace p2p |Review Request: CSpace p2p |Instant Messenger |Instant Messenger --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-08 10:24 EST --- Please put an url to your spec file in Spec URL: and an url to the srpm file in SRPM URL: and also provide a description (in general the same than what appears in %description in the spec file). The enclosing are not needed. If you are unsure, look at other reviews. -- 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 193380] Review Request: hardinfo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hardinfo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193380 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |NEEDINFO_REPORTER -- 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 201636] Review Request: CSpace p2p Instant Messenger
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: CSpace p2p Instant Messenger https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201636 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-08 10:33 EST --- Spec URL: http://cspace.in - Windows Homepage Spec URL: http://www.aabdalla.com/cspace/ - Linux SRPM URL:http://www.aabdalla.com/cspace/releases/cspace-0.1.24-r0.i386.rpm Description: CSpace - Secure, decentralized Peer-to-Peer Instant Messenger -- 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 201636] Review Request: CSpace p2p Instant Messenger
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: CSpace p2p Instant Messenger https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201636 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: CSpace p2p |Review Request: CSpace p2p |Instant Messenger |Instant Messenger CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-08 10:35 EST --- thommi: As far as I can tell, that Spec URL contains no actual .spec file for the RPM, and the SRPM link points to a binary RPM. Please ensure that you link us to a full .spec file and a source RPM instead. Thanks. -- 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 178162] Review Request: libgeotiff
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libgeotiff https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178162 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-08 10:39 EST --- The debian maintainer response: This is relevant. I would move those data into a non-free package a part. That would involve re-packaging the upstream tarball, of course. Maybe the best thing to do at that point would be to contact the upstream and ask them to precise their licence. Otherwise some split should be needed. (isn't there a bug to block in such cases, like FE-LEGAL?) -- 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 191592] Review Request: vorbisgain - Adds tags to Ogg Vorbis files to adjust the volume
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: vorbisgain - Adds tags to Ogg Vorbis files to adjust the volume https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191592 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-08 10:46 EST --- I'm just back from a few weeks of vacation, and I'm sorry about my slow response to this issue. I'm a bit uncertain if the tag generated by 'make tag' is correct (vorbisgain-0_34-1_fc6). However the package is built by the plague build system (as job id 13875) and is in status needsign at the moment. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 185845] Review Request: rpld - RPL/RIPL remote boot daemon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: rpld - RPL/RIPL remote boot daemon https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185845 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |NEEDINFO_REPORTER -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187325] Review Request: jaws
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jaws https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187325 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |NEEDINFO_REPORTER -- 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 178162] Review Request: libgeotiff
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libgeotiff https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178162 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||182235 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-08 10:54 EST --- Found it, it isn't FE-LEGAL but FE-Legal -- 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 201493] Review Request: perl-Module-Starter-PBP
Please 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-Module-Starter-PBP https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201493 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-08 10:55 EST --- perl(Test::More) is a core module, but easy enough to include. SRPM URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/perl-Module-Starter-PBP-0.03-3.fc5.src.rpm SPEC URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/perl-Module-Starter-PBP.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 200139] Review Request: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP 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: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200139 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-08 10:56 EST --- Sorry for the delay, been swamped with work... Finally poked at the -3 version a bit, and got the following out of rpmlint: $ rpmlint -i /build/RPMS/noarch/luma-2.3-3.fc5.noarch.rpm E: luma only-non-binary-in-usr-lib There are only non binary files in /usr/lib so they should be in /usr/share. This would appear to require some hacking of install.py, and I'm actually wondering if maybe these bits should go in /usr/lib/python2.x/site-packages/luma/ instead of /usr/lib/luma, /usr/share/luma/ or /usr/share/luma/lib. But python packaging definitely isn't my area of expertise, so that could be a bad idea. :) rpmlint seems to think somewhere under /usr/share is the place to put 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
[Bug 201493] Review Request: perl-Module-Starter-PBP
Please 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-Module-Starter-PBP https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201493 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-08 11:08 EST --- * rpmlint is silent * package named according to guidelines * free software, licences not included * meets packaging guidelines * spec legible * source match upstream 2e39d69cd77f64721a875d903a632be3 Module-Starter-PBP-v0.0.3.tar.gz * sane provides Provides: perl(Module::Starter::PBP) * %files right 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 187610] Review Request: crm114 - CRM114 Bayesian Spam Detector
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: crm114 - CRM114 Bayesian Spam Detector https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187610 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-08 11:10 EST --- If I'm not wrong this bug should block FE-REVIEW and be in ASSIGNED state... -- 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 187613] Review Request: sm_tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sm_tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187613 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |NEEDINFO_REPORTER -- 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 201480] Review Request: perl-DateTime-Format-Builder
Please 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-DateTime-Format-Builder https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201480 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-08 11:19 EST --- BR's and %doc updated; perl(DTFB::*) are actually packages defined in and as part of the test suites, so they were not included. SRPM URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/perl-DateTime-Format-Builder-0.7807-2.fc5.src.rpm SPEC URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/perl-DateTime-Format-Builder.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 201730] New: Review Request: MemProf
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=201730 Summary: Review Request: MemProf 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.daimi.au.dk/~sandmann/memprof.spec SRPM URL: http://www.daimi.au.dk/~sandmann/memprof.srpm Description: Memprof is a tool for profiling memory usage and detecting memory leaks. It can be used with existing binaries without need for recompilation -- 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 201730] Review Request: MemProf
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: MemProf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201730 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-08 11:52 EST --- Note that memprof used to be in Fedora, but was removed from FC-4 since it didn't work. It has now started working again though. -- 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 192049] Review Request: gnash - GNU Flash player
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gnash - GNU Flash player https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192049 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-08 11:53 EST --- The klash plugin fail to build on x86_64 arch using uptodate rawhide. Are there additional build-requirements? -- 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 201730] Review Request: MemProf
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: MemProf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201730 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-08 11:58 EST --- Corrected URLs: Spec URL: http://www.daimi.au.dk/~sandmann/memprof.spec SRPM URL: http://www.daimi.au.dk/~sandmann/memprof-0.6-1.src.rpm I don't feel very strongly about this package, so if it is going to be a huge hassle getting this back in, maybe it's not worth 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 178003] Review Request: tetex-lambda-jp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tetex-lambda-jp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163776 | 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 178003] Review Request: tetex-lambda-jp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tetex-lambda-jp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||201449 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 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] 2006-08-08 12:26 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-2.32.0-1.src.rpm %changelog * Tue Aug 8 2006 Alain Portal aportal AT univ-montp2 DOT fr 2.32.0-1 - Update to 2.32.0 -- 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 168719] Review Request: gdal
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gdal https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=168719 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO||201449 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-08 12:28 EST --- Make that review block FE-DEADREVIEW -- 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 185845] Review Request: rpld - RPL/RIPL remote boot daemon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: rpld - RPL/RIPL remote boot daemon https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185845 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO_REPORTER |ASSIGNED --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-08 12:52 EST --- Sorry for delay, work :( http://stingr.net/l/fe/rpld-1.8-2.src.rpm and http://stingr.net/l/fe/rpld.spec have been updated accorting to your corrections. Please take a look. -- 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 196281] Review Request: php-manual-en - English language PHP manual
Please 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-manual-en - English language PHP manual Alias: php-manual-en https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196281 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| Alias||php-manual-en -- 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] 2006-08-08 14:52 EST --- Thank you for your report. I have tried to solve the reported issues. aplus-fsf-4.20-6 should be available on the mirrors in the next days. -- 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 200139] Review Request: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP 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: luma - A graphical tool for managing LDAP servers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200139 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-08 15:04 EST --- I know this error message from rpmlint. But becouse other packages like yum does it in the same way. I decide not to change the package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201480] Review Request: perl-DateTime-Format-Builder
Please 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-DateTime-Format-Builder https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201480 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-08 15:10 EST --- * rpmlint is silent * package named according to guidelines * free software, licences included * meets packaging guidelines * spec legible * source match upstream 4f6ee670cab944db0492e70ca8df3be3 ./DateTime-Format-Builder-0.7807.tar.gz * sane provides Provides: perl(DateTime::Format::Builder) = 0.7807 perl(DateTime::Format::Builder::Parser) = 0.77 perl(DateTime::Format::Builder::Parser::Dispatch) = 0.78 perl(DateTime::Format::Builder::Parser::Quick) = 0.77 perl(DateTime::Format::Builder::Parser::Regex) = 0.77 perl(DateTime::Format::Builder::Parser::Strptime) = 0.77 perl(DateTime::Format::Builder::Parser::generic) = 0.77 * %files section right 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 201480] Review Request: perl-DateTime-Format-Builder
Please 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-DateTime-Format-Builder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201480
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-08 15:16 EST ---
You could add a comment to
mv LICENCE LICENSE
And
perl -pi -e 's/Ecopy/(C)/' `find lib/ -type f`
could be more classically something along
find lib/ -type f -exec sed -i -e 's/Ecopy/(C)/' {} \;
but it is a perl module, so there is more than one way
to do it ;-)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177860] Review Request: libXvMCW - A Wrapper for run-time loading of XvMC 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: libXvMCW - A Wrapper for run-time loading of XvMC libraries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177860 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX -- 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 201779] New: Review Request: xfsdump
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=201779 Summary: Review Request: xfsdump 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://xfs.org/~cattelan/xfsdump.spec SRPM URL: http://xfs.org/~cattelan/xfsdump-2.2.38-1.src.rpm Description: package for xfs dump/restore xfs_copy xfs_defrag -- 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 187610] Review Request: crm114 - CRM114 Bayesian Spam Detector
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: crm114 - CRM114 Bayesian Spam Detector https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187610 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-08 15:56 EST --- Yes. Jima said on IRC that he'll do it shortly, no worries. -- 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 201493] Review Request: perl-Module-Starter-PBP
Please 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-Module-Starter-PBP https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201493 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-08 16:00 EST --- +Import to CVS +Add to owners.list +Bump release, build for devel +devel build succeeds +Request branching (FC-4, FC-5) +Close bug Thanks for the review! :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195486] Review Request: kdenetwork: K Desktop Environment - Network Applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdenetwork: K Desktop Environment - Network Applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195486 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-08 16:12 EST --- Can we do away with the FC 4 support? Personally? No, I intend to be able to (continue to) (re)build these on/for rhel4 as well. The ancient/legacy bits (like rh7 references) can certainly go. fails in mock devel because its looking for libmeanwhile0-devel, but FC uses meanwhile-devel Yeah, it needs libmeanwhile-0.4, which is API-incompatible with newer releases (and kopete doesn't yet support the newer API). I'll conditionalize out the meanwhile support for 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 195486] Review Request: kdenetwork: K Desktop Environment - Network Applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdenetwork: K Desktop Environment - Network Applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195486 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-08 16:17 EST --- Spec URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/SPECS/kdenetwork.spec SRPM URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/all/SRPMS.testing/kdenetwork-3.5.4-3.src.rpm %changelog * Tue Aug 08 2006 Rex Dieter rexdieter[AT]users.sf.net 7:3.5.4-3 - BR: gettext - don't --enable-sametime-plugin, libmeanwhile0 is not (yet) available. - drop legacy (rh7) bit(s). * Mon Jul 31 2006 Rex Dieter rexdieter[AT]users.sf.net 7:3.5.4-2 - kopete patch can't connect to IRC (kde bug #131598) * Tue Jul 25 2006 Rex Dieter rexdieter[AT]users.sf.net 7:3.5.4-1 - kde-3.5.4 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194375] Review Request: kdeutils: K Desktop Environment - 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: kdeutils: K Desktop Environment - Utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194375 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-08 16:22 EST --- updated URL: SRPM URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/all/SRPMS.testing/kdeutils-3.5.4-1.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 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] 2006-08-08 17:20 EST --- New spec: http://developer.postgresql.org/~devrim/rpms/other/postgresql_autodoc/postgresql_autodoc.spec New srpm: http://developer.postgresql.org/~devrim/rpms/other/postgresql_autodoc/postgresql_autodoc-1.25-3.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201551] Review Request: db4o
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: db4o
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201551
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-08 17:33 EST ---
Looks almost perfect, except for these new rpmlint warnings:
W: db4o-devel no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc).
You have to include documentation files.
It can be ignored.
W: db4o-doc non-standard-group Development/Documentation
The value of the Group tag in the package is not valid. Valid groups are:
[...]Documentation[...]
I think you should call it just that. :)
Oh, and you can also add
%define debug_package %{nil}
so that the empty debug package isn't generated. Something like that is found in
other mono packages, too, and follows the packaging guidelines:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Debuginfo#head-29573c4f61c3a4698b2d07c7e73cfa194785f257
Running the built Db4oMonoTest.exe seems fine, too.
Fix the group tag, disable debuginfo generation, and it's APPROVED.
Good work.
--
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 201480] Review Request: perl-DateTime-Format-Builder
Please 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-DateTime-Format-Builder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201480
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
Resolution||NEXTRELEASE
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-08 18:07 EST ---
+Import to CVS
+Add to owners.list
+Bump release, build for devel
+devel build succeeds
+Request branching
+Close bug
Thanks for the review!
(In reply to comment #4)
perl -pi -e 's/Ecopy/(C)/' `find lib/ -type f`
could be more classically something along
find lib/ -type f -exec sed -i -e 's/Ecopy/(C)/' {} \;
but it is a perl module, so there is more than one way
to do it ;-)
TMTOWTDI, even outside perl :)
--
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 201481] Review Request: perl-DateTime-Format-MySQL
Please 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-DateTime-Format-MySQL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201481 Bug 201481 depends on bug 201480, which changed state. Bug 201480 Summary: Review Request: perl-DateTime-Format-Builder https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201480 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193889] Review Request: ht2html - The www.python.org Web site generator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ht2html - The www.python.org Web site generator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193889 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-08 18:14 EST --- Any reason this hasn't been built yet? I see that it's in CVS and has branched for FC-5, but I don't see any packages in the repository and of course this bug hasn't been closed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201806] New: Review Request: mbuffer
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=201806 Summary: Review Request: mbuffer 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://www.uni-x.org/review/mbuffer.spec SRPM URL: http://www.uni-x.org/review/mbuffer-20060728-1.src.rpm Description: mbuffer is a tool for buffering data streams. Its special feature is to show the I/O rate and summary to the user. Comment: The package had already been under review, in pre-bugzilla_review times. But for some reasons I never committed it into CVS. So I feel it is better to again offer a review. Reference for previous review: http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2005-August/msg00046.html http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2005-August/msg00152.html -- 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 193161] Review Request: ruby-postgres
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ruby-postgres https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193161 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-08 18:57 EST --- That looks significantly better; the compiler is called properly and the debuginfo package includes the source. It looks like the directory ownership problem is being fixed in the core ruby-libs package as well, so I think things are ready to go. The only issue is whether ruby-libs will be fixed for FC5 and if not how you deal with that. I'll leave it to you since everything is fine on FC6. 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 201808] New: request for package in extras: aria2 (command line BitTorrent client)
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=201808
Summary: request for package in extras: aria2 (command line
BitTorrent client)
Product: Fedora Extras
Version: devel
Platform: i386
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: low
Priority: normal
Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com
From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1b1)
Gecko/20060808 BonEcho/2.0b1
Description of problem:
This is a request that you will include aria2 (http://aria2.sourceforge.net/)
RPMs in Fedora Extras. aria2 is a command line download utility that supports
BitTorrent. It's like the aria2 download manager but light weight and no GUI.
I've been using this .spec file to package it, but I don't really know what I'm
doing.
%define ver 0.7.0
%define rel 1.FC6
%define prefix /usr
Name: aria2
Version : %{ver}
Source : aria2-%{ver}.tar.bz2
Release : %{rel}
Group : Productivity/Networking
License : GPL
Packager: Anthony Bryan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
URL : http://aria2.sourceforge.net/
Summary : aria2 is a download utility with BitTorrent and Metalink support.
BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-buildroot
BuildRequires: openssl-devel libxml2-devel
%description
aria2 is a download utility with resuming and segmented downloading.
Supported protocols are HTTP/HTTPS/FTP/BitTorrent/Metalink.
%prep
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
%setup
%build
CFLAGS=$RPM_OPT_FLAGS ./configure \
--mandir=%{_mandir} \
--prefix=%{prefix}
%{__make} %{?_smp_mflags}
%install
[ $RPM_BUILD_ROOT != / ] [ -d $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ] rm -rf
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT;
make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT install
%clean
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
%files
%defattr(-, root, root, 0755)
%doc ChangeLog COPYING NEWS README AUTHORS TODO
#%{_libdir}/*.so.*
#%doc doc/API.html doc/DOCUMENTATION doc/README.html
%{_bindir}/*
#%{_includedir}/libetpan/
#%{_includedir}/libetpan.h
#%exclude %{_libdir}/*.a
#%exclude %{_libdir}/*.la
#%{_libdir}/*.so
/usr/share/locale/*
%changelog
* Tue Aug 8 2006 Anthony Bryan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Update to version 0.7.0
* Fri Jul 28 2006 Anthony Bryan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Update to version 0.6.0+1 and FC6
* Mon Jun 5 2006 Malcolm A Hussain-Gambles [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- First release of this package by me
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
How reproducible:
Always
Steps to Reproduce:
1. No packages included
Actual Results:
Expected Results:
Additional info:
--
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 191017] Review Request: eclipse-subclipse
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: eclipse-subclipse https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191017 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-08 20:26 EST --- OK folks, this builds but installation is a bit odd: GC Warning: Couldn't read /proc/stat GC Warning: GC_get_nprocs() returned -1 GC Warning: Couldn't read /proc/stat GC Warning: GC_get_nprocs() returned -1 dirname: missing operand Try `dirname --help' for more information. mkdir: missing operand Try `mkdir --help' for more information. GC Warning: Couldn't read /proc/stat GC Warning: GC_get_nprocs() returned -1 /usr/bin/rebuild-gcj-db: line 17: 4325 Segmentation fault /usr/bin/gcj-dbtool -n $dbLocation 64 GC Warning: Couldn't read /proc/stat GC Warning: GC_get_nprocs() returned -1 xargs: /usr/bin/gcj-dbtool: terminated by signal 11 GC Warning: Couldn't read /proc/stat GC Warning: GC_get_nprocs() returned -1 Any idea what this is about? It's an install in a mock chroot, so perhaps there's some weirdness due to that, but I doubt it's reasonable for things to segfault. rpmlint has some complaints: On the srpm: W: eclipse-subclipse mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs Some lines are indented with tabs, some with spaces, and some of the Requires: and BuildRequires: lines have both. W: eclipse-subclipse patch-not-applied Patch10: eclipse-subclipse-1.1.4-plugin-classpath.patch Not sure what's up here; perhaps a comment as to why this isn't applied would help. On the binary rpm: W: eclipse-subclipse non-standard-group Text Editors/Integrated Development Environments (IDE) I don't think there's any concensus as to what to do with groups at this point; following Eclipse is probably best. W: eclipse-subclipse invalid-license EPL Seems OK as that's what Eclipse uses. W: eclipse-subclipse no-documentation Indeed, there's nothing marked as %doc. Is there anything that should be so marked? There are license files as plain text and HTML changelog files and such, which seems like they qualify. W: eclipse-subclipse dangling-symlink /usr/share/eclipse/plugins/org.tigris.subversion.subclipse.core_1.1.4/lib/javasvn.jar /usr/share/java/javasvn.jar This is OK; it's a symlink to a dependency. W: eclipse-subclipse symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/eclipse/plugins/org.tigris.subversion.subclipse.core_1.1.4/lib/javasvn.jar /usr/share/java/javasvn.jar However, the link should be relative. The symlink warnings are repeated for these files: /usr/share/eclipse/plugins/org.tigris.subversion.subclipse.core_1.1.4/lib/ganymed.jar /usr/share/eclipse/plugins/org.tigris.subversion.subclipse.core_1.1.4/lib/svnjavahl.jar -- 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] 2006-08-08 20:38 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-2.33.0-1.src.rpm %changelog * Wed Aug 9 2006 Alain Portal aportal AT univ-montp2 DOT fr 2.33.0-1 - Update to 2.33.0 -- 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 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 [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 199020] Review Request: conexusmm (Gtkmm widgets for the conexus network and serial I/O 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: conexusmm (Gtkmm widgets for the conexus network and serial I/O library) Alias: conexusmm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199020 Bug 199020 depends on bug 183322, which changed state. Bug 183322 Summary: Review Request: conexus (network and serial I/O library with Gtkmm widgets) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=183322 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 187610] Review Request: crm114 - CRM114 Bayesian Spam Detector
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: crm114 - CRM114 Bayesian Spam Detector https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187610 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-08 21:13 EST --- Patrice: Don't worry, Rathann and I are in active communication; he knows exactly what my status on this review is. :-) As for why I hadn't blocked FE-REVIEW yet, I was waiting until its dependent bug (187609) cleared review. There were some issues, but they've, well, sort of been cleared up. Other issues cropped up which delayed my turn in this review, but Rathann was understanding. (Thanks!) Rathann: Off the cuff, since tre has 'ExcludeArch: x86_64', shouldn't crm114 have it, too? I'd also welcome a newer version, if it's available. :-) I'll start poking this a little. Let me know if you have any revisions. -- 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 187818] Review Request: ktorrent : KDE bittorrent 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: ktorrent : KDE bittorrent client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187818
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-08 23:02 EST ---
There is one problem now: before I was able to upload the ktorrent to cvs and
start packaging, a new major version was released. It is a jump from version
1.2 to 2.0 with new features:
- Support for distributed hash tables (mainline version)
- Protocol encryption
- Bandwith scheduling
- Directory scanner to automatically load torrents in certain directories
- Trackers can now be added to torrents
- File prioritization for multi file torrents
The old spec file works when I modify the file list and the version number as
well. However, the installation of the 2.0 rpm has a file conflict with
kdelibs, and I added
%exclude %{_datadir}/mimelnk/application/x-bittorrent.desktop
in the spec file.
The new spec file and SRPM can be found here:
Spec: http://www.personal.uni-jena.de/~p1woro/fedorarpms/ktorrent.spec
SRPM:
http://www.personal.uni-jena.de/~p1woro/fedorarpms/ktorrent-2.0-1.src.rpm
Is the package in this form still approved/accepted?
--
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 201470] Review Request: genchemlab
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: genchemlab
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201470
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-08 23:10 EST ---
Hi Paul,
* The .spec file you're linking to is not the same included in the .src.rpm.
Anyway, I'm reviewing the one from the source rpm.
* %{?smp_flags} should be %{?_smp_mflags}.
* It seems a common practice in Extras is to use dl.sourceforge.net as value
for the 'Source' tag instead of a mirror. This is not a blocker, though.
Everything else looks fine.
Fix the _smp_mflags typo and I'll approve this package.
REVIEW (genchemlab-1.0-3)
+ rpmlint shows no error.
+ package meets the naming guidelines.
+ spec-file is properly named.
X package doesn't meet the packaging guidelines
- Parallel make macro should be %{?_smp_mflags} not %{?smp_flags} :)
+ package license is open-source compatible (GPL).
+ license field matches the actual license.
+ license file included in %doc.
+ spec file is written in english.
+ spec file is legible.
+ source files match upstream:
ef364cff3f3e2dba4c62a5d1a0084bae genchemlab-1.0.tgz
+ package successfully compiled, built and tested on i386 (rawhide).
+ all build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
+ package doesn't need to use %find_lang (no locales present).
+ package doesn't contain shared libraries.
+ package isn't relocatable.
+ package owns all directories that it creates.
+ no duplicate files in %files.
+ file permissions are properly set.
+ package has a %clean section containing rm -rf %{buildroot}.
+ package uses macros consistently.
+ package contains code, not content.
+ no -doc subpackage needed.
+ %docs don't affect application runtime.
+ package doesn't contain headers, static libraries or pkgconfig files (no devel
package).
+ GUI application; includes .desktop file installed correctly with
desktop-file-install.
+ package doesn't own directories owned by other packages.
+ package builds fine in mock (fedora-development-i386-core).
--
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 187818] Review Request: ktorrent : KDE bittorrent 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: ktorrent : KDE bittorrent client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187818
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-08 23:16 EST ---
Sure, (still) approved, though I don't see any
%exclude %{_datadir}/mimelnk/application/x-bittorrent.desktop
in the referenced 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 177117] Review Request: libtlen - Tlen.pl client library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libtlen - Tlen.pl client library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177117 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-08 23:22 EST --- OK, the updated package builds fine and still looks OK. The dist tag is there, as is the license file. APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201637] Review Request: CSpace p2p Instant Messenger
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: CSpace p2p Instant Messenger https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201637 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163776 | 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 201638] Review Request: CSpace p2p Instant Messenger
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: CSpace p2p Instant Messenger https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201638 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163776 | 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 201656] Review Request: gstm-1.2
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: gstm-1.2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201656 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-08 23:26 EST --- Why has this been closed and checked in? I don't see any approval, and it's still blocking FE-NEW. -- 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 199021] Review Request: zynaddsubfx - 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: zynaddsubfx - Real-time software synthesizer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199021 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO_REPORTER -- 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 188138] Review Request: mod_auth_ntlm_winbind - NTLM authentication for the Apache web server using winbind daemon
Please 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_auth_ntlm_winbind - NTLM authentication for the Apache web server using winbind daemon https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188138 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-09 00:46 EST --- Sorry ... Newb problem ... I downloaded the src rpm from above and did a rpmbuild and rpm -i to install it appeared to compile via apsx and install ok. and the files are in the right place. I have a working samba, and squid ntlm auth works. I have added apache to the squid group. However this it does not seem to work for me.. Both with IE This is a bit distressing ... as I have had it working on another distro sum of my apache module ... sum mod_auth_ntlm_winbind.so 1569316 Does this match yours ? Did I build the rpm correctly ... I assumed the spec file was in the source rpm ...newb question this :-) I did a rpmbuild --rebuild I am using FC 5 Apache 2.2.2 samba version 3.0.23a-1.fc5.1 drwxr-x--- 2 root squid 4096 Aug 8 14:10 winbindd_privileged Thanks ... log dump from apache follows Peter [Wed Aug 09 12:40:09 2006] [debug] mod_ntlm_winbind.c(1088): [client 10.251.20.195] doing ntlm auth dance [Wed Aug 09 12:40:09 2006] [debug] mod_ntlm_winbind.c(529): [client 10.251.20.195] Launched ntlm_helper, pid 29040 [Wed Aug 09 12:40:09 2006] [debug] mod_ntlm_winbind.c(699): [client 10.251.20.195] creating auth user [Wed Aug 09 12:40:09 2006] [debug] mod_ntlm_winbind.c(750): [client 10.251.20.195] parsing reply from helper to YR TlR MTVNTUAABB7IIogoACgAyCgAKACgFASgKD0M3MTItUEVURVJDVVJSSUM0MTgy\n [2006/08/09 12:40:09, 3] libsmb/ntlmssp.c:debug_ntlmssp_flags(63) Got NTLMSSP neg_flags=0xa208b207 NTLMSSP_NEGOTIATE_UNICODE NTLMSSP_NEGOTIATE_OEM NTLMSSP_REQUEST_TARGET NTLMSSP_NEGOTIATE_NTLM NTLMSSP_NEGOTIATE_DOMAIN_SUPPLIED NTLMSSP_NEGOTIATE_WORKSTATION_SUPPLIED NTLMSSP_NEGOTIATE_ALWAYS_SIGN NTLMSSP_NEGOTIATE_NTLM2 NTLMSSP_NEGOTIATE_128 NTLMSSP_NEGOTIATE_56 [Wed Aug 09 12:40:09 2006] [debug] mod_ntlm_winbind.c(788): [client 10.251.20.195] got response: TT TlRMTVNTUAACFA AUADAFgomiMfpcnS8gMLUAAKoAqgBEQwBVAFIAUgBJAEMANAAxADgAMgACABQAQwBVAFIAUgBJAEMANAAxADgAMgABABoAQwBVAFIA UgBJAEMANAAxADgAMgAtADAANQAEACYAYwB1AHIAcgBpAGMANAAxADgAMgAuAGkAbgB0AGUAcgBuAGEAbAADAEIAYwB1AHIAcgBpAGMANAAxADgAMgAtAD AANQAuAGMAdQByAHIAaQBjADQAMQA4ADIALgBpAG4AdABlAHIAbgBhAGwAAA== [Wed Aug 09 12:40:09 2006] [debug] mod_ntlm_winbind.c(455): [client 10.251.20.195] sending back TlRMTVNTUAACFAAUAD AFgomiMfpcnS8gMLUAAKoAqgBEQwBVAFIAUgBJAEMANAAxADgAMgACABQAQwBVAFIAUgBJAEMANAAxADgAMgABABoAQwBVAFIAUgBJ AEMANAAxADgAMgAtADAANQAEACYAYwB1AHIAcgBpAGMANAAxADgAMgAuAGkAbgB0AGUAcgBuAGEAbAADAEIAYwB1AHIAcgBpAGMANAAxADgAMgAtADAANQ AuAGMAdQByAHIAaQBjADQAMQA4ADIALgBpAG4AdABlAHIAbgBhAGwAAA== -- 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 168719] Review Request: gdal
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gdal https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=168719 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-09 01:13 EST --- (In reply to comment #29) Make that review block FE-DEADREVIEW I fail to see the usefulness of FE-DEADREVIEW. All it does is to add further bureaucracy. -- 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
