[Bug 196529] Review Request: gtkdatabox
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gtkdatabox https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196529 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-09 02:31 EST --- SPEC: http://www.ece.ucdavis.edu/~ewwork/repo/development/SPECS/gtkdatabox.spec SRPM: http://www.ece.ucdavis.edu/~ewwork/repo/development/SRPMS/gtkdatabox-0.6.0.0-1.fc5.src.rpm Sorry for the delay but here is the updated .spec file and .srpm. I made the requested changes: * add %post/%postun for -devel * added examples/*.c to -devel Also updated to the latest version. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199681] Review Request: slab
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: slab https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199681 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-09 03:57 EST --- There seems to be a packaging mistake here. #rpm -Uvh /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i386/slab-0.6.2-2.20060801cvs.i386.rpm Preparing...### [100%] package slab-1.0-5.20060721cvs (which is newer than slab-0.6.2-2.20060801cvs) is already installed Suspend menu item doesnt show up which I click log out. Log out was called Exit in the previous package. I am not sure calling neat is useful for the end user. They usually wouldnt be setting up profiles. If the network is wireless, it should probably call Network Manager instead although the user interface is a applet which isnt suitable for direct interaction. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 04:08 EST --- If I understand well it is not something mandatory, it may help contributors who want to submit a package, as in case it has allready been submitted but abandonned they can see it by looking at the FE-DEADREVIEW tree. If it was mandatory sure it would add more 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
[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] 2006-08-09 04:30 EST --- Confused... But make the a complet review please! Someone could review this 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 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] 2006-08-09 05:16 EST --- (In reply to comment #4) Patrice: Don't worry, Rathann and I are in active communication; he knows exactly what my status on this review is. :-) You both know, but setting FE-REVIEW helps others know :-), so it is important to set it when you are sure that you'll review the package such that it appears as such, for example here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/showdependencytree.cgi?id=FE-REVIEWhide_resolved=1 and also don't appear anymore in FE-NEW as a package to be reviewed... not a big deal, 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 201808] 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. Summary: request for package in extras: aria2 (command line BitTorrent client) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201808 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-09 06:01 EST --- If you're interested in developing this package so as to meet the Fedora Packaging Guidelines and to maintain it yourself in Extras, you should read: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Contributors http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines If not, it would be better to add it here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/WishList in the hope that someone will pick up the package and maintain it in Extras themselves. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-09 06:43 EST --- Package imported, devel build successful, FC-4 and FC-5 branches requested. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199029] Review Request: jokosher
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jokosher https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199029 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-09 06:47 EST --- Any signs of the update? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 178904] Review Request: Monodevelop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Monodevelop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178904 Bug 178904 depends on bug 200639, which changed state. Bug 200639 Summary: Either geckosharp or the glib bindings are causing a sigsegv https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200639 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||RAWHIDE Status|NEW |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 177134] Review Request: mkvtoolnix - Matroska container utilites
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mkvtoolnix - Matroska container utilites https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177134 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-09 06:56 EST --- Posted a question to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FedoraLegalIssues to keep track of this. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2006-08-09 07:08 EST --- Spec URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/genchemlab.spec SRPM URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/genchemlab-1.0-4.src.rpm Fixed the _smp_mflags thing * 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. sourceforge enjoys acting up on occassion which is why I always give a direct link to the ftp place which has the tarball -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2006-08-09 07:50 EST --- Spec URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/db4o.spec SRPM URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/db4o-5.5-7.src.rpm Fixes #10 I've even added R pkg-config to the devel requires! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-09 08:02 EST --- The log shows that the module itself works, ntlm_auth helper was invoked and successfully connected to winbindd... Some ideas: - Does your IE ask for login/password? If so, did you use DOMAIN\user or just user for login? - What is your KeepAlive parameter in /etc/httpd/conf/httpd.conf? Anyway, try KeepAlive on and MaxKeepAliveRequests 100 or another big enough value -- but NOT zero (0) value. It these two ideas help nothing, send me (for my e-mail) your httpd.conf and /etc/httpd/conf.d/ntlm_winbind.conf ... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193867] Review Request: klamav - Clam Anti-Virus on the KDE Desktop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: klamav - Clam Anti-Virus on the KDE Desktop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193867 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-09 08:02 EST --- Ping? I've updated to last release. Package you can found here: ftp://andriy.asplinux.com.ua/pub/people/andy/extras/klamav-0.38-1.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 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-09 08:03 EST --- It these = If these :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-08-09 08:05 EST --- (In reply to comment #11) I've even added R pkg-config to the devel requires! Unfortunately the pkg-config program comes in a package called pkgconfig so you need an R: pkgconfig rather than an R: pkg-config -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-08-09 08:07 EST ---
There's a typo now:
%define debug_packahe %{nil}
Also, please put Requires: pkgconfig in a separate line.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201178] Review Request: pinball - Emilia Pinball game
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: pinball - Emilia Pinball game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201178
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-09 08:10 EST ---
(In reply to comment #6)
Bad
%{_libdir}/%{name}/lib*.la
Why? There should be no .la or .a files in a package
Quoting from the specfile:
# .la files are needed for ltdl
What is not clear about that?
Should /sbin/ldconfig not be also executed?
Quoting myself from comment #3:
The .so files also are not needed to link against, since this are not libs but
plugins. The -devel package is to develop new plugins, not to develop programs
using the existing ones, hence no .so files.
Since they are not used to link against directly calling ldconfig is not needed,
actually since they are not in a dir searched by ldconfig, calling ldconfig is
futile.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-08-09 08:30 EST --- Spec URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/db4o.spec Fixes the above Is there a reason for having the pkgconfig on another line? From what I can see, there is nothing in the docs about doing it that way (and I certainly haven't on other 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 201806] 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. Summary: Review Request: mbuffer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201806 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-09 08:58 EST --- rpmlint on SRPM is not silent W: mbuffer mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs The specfile mixes use of spaces and tabs for indentation, which is a cosmetic annoyance. Use either spaces or tabs for indentation, not both. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 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.
Summary: Review Request: xfsdump
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201779
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-09 09:08 EST ---
rpmlint is not silent
W: xfsdump summary-ended-with-dot Administrative utilities for the XFS
filesystem.
Summary ends with a dot.
== Remove dot at end of Summary description
E: xfsdump no-changelogname-tag
There is no %changelog tag in your spec file. To insert it, just insert a
'%changelog' in your spec file and rebuild it.
== you have not added Changelog. Add it.
W: xfsdump mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs
The specfile mixes use of spaces and tabs for indentation, which is a
cosmetic annoyance. Use either spaces or tabs for indentation, not both.
When i look at SPEC file i found :-
- dist tag is missing
- I dont think Obsoletes and Conflicts is needed as package name is not
changed from previous version.
- You have added twice make %{?_smp_mflags}. Remove one line
- No Document files added. try to add under %files
%doc README doc/COPYING doc/CHANGES doc/README.xfsdump doc/xfsdump_ts.txt
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 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. Summary: Review Request: mbuffer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201806 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-09 09:22 EST --- Given that I already approved this package back in the old days, I'll take another quick look at it later today when I a free moment or two; shouldn't take too long. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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|CLOSED |NEW Keywords||Reopened 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 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] 2006-08-09 11:03 EST --- Having each explicit dependency in a separate line makes it easier to see what is required. I, for one, had some trouble finding your addition at first glance. That said, it's not a blocker, so the current version is 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 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 |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-09 11:08 EST --- In the interests of getting everything straightened out, I'll go ahead and review this 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 177512] Review Request: mysql-connector-net
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mysql-connector-net https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177512 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-09 11:21 EST --- Spec Name or Url: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/mysql-connector-net.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/mysql-connector-net-1.0.7-6.src.rpm Lots of changes! Package now has the notorious mono hack included Quite a lot of fixes to the spec file (I think I was drunk when I wrote it!) Now includes a .pc file (means you can have -pkg:mysql-connector-net) Includes a devel package with examples and a testsuite It's warm, it's cuddly, it needs approving! ;-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-09 11:42 EST --- Thanks for such a wonderful first review (on your part). Keep up the good work and I'll see you on IRC :-D -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201873] New: Review Request: wmix - Dockapp mixer
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=201873 Summary: Review Request: wmix - Dockapp mixer 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.environnement.ens.fr/perso/dumas/fc-srpms/wmix.spec SRPM URL: http://www.environnement.ens.fr/perso/dumas/fc-srpms/wmix-3.1-1.src.rpm Description: Dockapp mixer for OSS or ALSA. Allows toggling record source, muting individual channels, adjusting volume and balance, all in a compact dockapp size, with TV-like on-screen-display for volume levels. Supports mousewheel to adjust current channel volume, and can be controlled remotely with SIGUSR1 / SIGUSR2 to adjust the volume, too. Can use a configuration file to control some of the features. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-08-09 11:50 EST --- The package imported into cvs still has the wrong pkg-config dependency for the -devel package, which will make this package uninstallable. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-08-09 12:20 EST --- OK, you have right. Here the next release: Spec URL: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/luma/luma.spec SRPM URL: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/luma/luma-2.3-4.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |NEEDINFO_REPORTER
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OtherBugsDependingO|188265 |188267
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-09 12:30 EST ---
NEEDSWORK:
- buildroot should be
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
- Why only i386? Does this not work on x86_64? What about all our other
arches?
- GCONF needs help:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ScriptletSnippets#head-ff64cd482595764f672082d5a3b83e1fc22962e8
- Package fails to build, probably missing intltool BuildRequires, possibly
more.
+ autoreconf
configure.in:24: error: possibly undefined macro: AC_PROG_INTLTOOL
If this token and others are legitimate, please use m4_pattern_allow.
See the Autoconf documentation.
autoreconf: /usr/bin/autoconf failed with exit status: 1
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.33363 (%build)
--
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 197791] Review Request: stacaccli - Stateless Cached Client Tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: stacaccli - Stateless Cached Client Tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197791 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|188267 | nThis|| -- 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] 2006-08-09 12:48 EST --- Is this something needed for Core, or could it be in Extras? -- 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 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] 2006-08-09 13:34 EST --- It seems as if this is a problem with the openvpn package and should be solved there, correct? If so please propose this patch to either the selinux policy or the openvpn package (and provide a link to the bugzilla id here). If not please explain to me why this is NetworkManager-openvpn specific. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 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. Summary: Review Request: xfsdump https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201779 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-09 13:48 EST --- Thanks for the comments, I think I've addressed the issues except for the dist tag. (not sure how that is suppose to be handled). The Buildrequires has also been fixed to include the needed devel libs. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 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. Summary: Review Request: xfsdump https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201779 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-09 13:52 EST --- Ohh one other note: The patch to remove libdm has been checked in upstream, it is not the same patch as in the original post but meets the same goal of not needing libdm-devel. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2006-08-09 13:54 EST --- If the fixes work, I'll get them included in the upstream selinux-policy package. What I'm asking here is for someone actually using this package with SELinux enabled to try them out and see if they fix the issues. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201806] 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. Summary: Review Request: mbuffer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201806 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-09 13:58 EST --- (In reply to comment #1) rpmlint on SRPM is not silent W: mbuffer mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs The specfile mixes use of spaces and tabs for indentation, which is a cosmetic annoyance. Use either spaces or tabs for indentation, not both. Thanks, did rpmlint just against the binary rpm. Now fixed it without version bump (the 2 compile options needed another tab indent). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201873] Review Request: wmix - Dockapp mixer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: wmix - Dockapp mixer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201873 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201913] New: Review Request: compat-gcc-34 - GCC 3.4.6-RH compatibility compiler and libraries
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=201913
Summary: Review Request: compat-gcc-34 - GCC 3.4.6-RH
compatibility compiler and libraries
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:
cvs://:cvs.devel.redhat.com/cvs/dist/rpms/compat-gcc-34/devel/compat-gcc-34.spec
SRPM URL: make srpm in cvs.devel checkout
Description: This package is analoguous to compat-gcc-32 in FC5 and earlier.
The proposed compat compiler/libraries set for FC6/RHEL5 is:
compat-gcc-34 (subpackages compat-gcc-34, compat-gcc-34-{c++,g77,libf2c})
is GCC 3.4.6-RH compiler (no compat-libstdc++-34, as GCC 4.1.1-RH libstdc++
is backwards compatible with 3.4.6-RH).
compat-gcc-32 will only build compat-libstdc++-32 subpackage and
compat-libstdc++-296 will still exist too, just with all pre-2.96-RH libraries
nuked.
--
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 201913] Review Request: compat-gcc-34 - GCC 3.4.6-RH compatibility compiler and 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: compat-gcc-34 - GCC 3.4.6-RH compatibility compiler and libraries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201913 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-09 15:04 EST --- I personally think that this should live in extras not core. unless something in core needs the older compiler to build. -- 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 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 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 197981] Review Request: gkrellm-wifi - Wireless monitor plugin for the GNU Krell Monitors
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gkrellm-wifi - Wireless monitor plugin for the GNU Krell Monitors https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197981 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-09 15:18 EST --- For the record here is the reply I got from upstream about the 2 different versions: --- Hi, On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 02:07:09PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: The one in the core package seems to be newer. I've attached a patch which upgrades the version on your website to this newer version, and thus shows the differences. Do you know how this is possible? That's very odd indeed - I have no idea how it happened. However, I don't use Linux nor GKrellM anymore since I've switched to FreeBSD, so I wont be making any updates to the sources. You're free to take over maintaining the plug-in if you'd like. Regards, Brix -- Henrik Brix Andersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193894] Review Request: ant-contrib - A collection of tasks for Ant
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ant-contrib - A collection of tasks for Ant https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193894 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-09 15:21 EST --- I see that you've been sponsored by Tibbs some time ago, as I alreadyu said this packages looks good - Approved! Feel free to import and build this. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197649] Review Request: gnustep-make - GNUstep makefile 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: gnustep-make - GNUstep makefile package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197649 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-09 15:45 EST --- So is anyone reviewing this formally? If not, I'm interested, as this solves one of the dependencies for oolite. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201913] Review Request: compat-gcc-34 - GCC 3.4.6-RH compatibility compiler and 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: compat-gcc-34 - GCC 3.4.6-RH compatibility compiler and libraries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201913 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-09 15:46 EST --- No, this needs to be in the core. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2006-08-09 15:48 EST --- Review (genchemlab-1.0-4) X package doesn't meet the packaging guidelines + package meets the packaging guidelines APPROVED then :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 [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 197649] Review Request: gnustep-make - GNUstep makefile 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: gnustep-make - GNUstep makefile package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197649 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-09 16:11 EST --- Dominik, it's still blocking FE-NEW, so no one has formally reviewed this yet. Go for 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 184331] Review Request: K-3D - 3D modeling and rendering system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: K-3D - 3D modeling and rendering system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=184331
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-09 16:35 EST ---
Okay
Good
Builds fine and actually works
rpmlint is clean on all packages (with the exceptions listed above which I'm
willing to accept)
No dupes in the BRs
Includes documentation
No issues with directory ownership
Bad
Needs pkgconfig adding to the R: on the devel
You've packaged the same README in the main and devel package
Unsure
find -type f -regex '.*\.\(cpp\|h\|svg\)' -perm +111 -exec chmod -x {} ';' -
seems like overkill to me.
Fix the two bads (which aren't that bad!), and it's good to go
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201913] Review Request: compat-gcc-34 - GCC 3.4.6-RH compatibility compiler and 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: compat-gcc-34 - GCC 3.4.6-RH compatibility compiler
and libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201913
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |NEEDINFO_REPORTER
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OtherBugsDependingO|188265 |188267
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-09 16:49 EST ---
NEEDSWORK:
- Defining gcc_version and then using it in all places you could use Version: is
silly, and unnecessarily complicated.
- Ditto gcc_release
- Don't start summary with The
- Buildroot should be
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
- Lots of Obsoletes w/out provides
- PreReq instead of Requires(pre) or Requires(post) or just Requires.
--
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 188542] Review Request: hylafax
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hylafax https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188542 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-09 16:58 EST --- OK, I will do another formal review ASAP (I'm pretty busy ATM). There are still some things in the specfile I'm not happy with, mainly the changelog and the permissions of some dirs. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177603] Review Request: libpri
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libpri https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177603 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-09 17:08 EST --- http://www.ocjtech.us/libpri-1.2.2-1.src.rpm seems to be an out of date url, is there a more up to date one? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201941] New: Review Request: tetex-elsevier
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=201941 Summary: Review Request: tetex-elsevier 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.environnement.ens.fr/perso/dumas/fc-srpms/tetex-elsevier.spec SRPM URL: http://www.environnement.ens.fr/perso/dumas/fc-srpms/tetex-elsevier-0.1.20060416-1.src.rpm Description: LaTeX style files for the Elsevier publisher. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201941] Review Request: tetex-elsevier
Please 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-elsevier https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201941 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-09 17:21 EST --- The package consist in the style file and documentation files found on the elsevier web site. There is a package in ctan but it is very outdated. The documentation files don't have an explicit licence but they are tighly associated with the style files and available from the same web page so I packaged the documentation along. I didn't packaged te documentation sources, although they are available at the same place. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201498] Review Request: xdrawchem - 2D chemical structures drawing 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: xdrawchem - 2D chemical structures drawing tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201498 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-09 17:24 EST --- Good : rpmlint clean no dupes no directory ownership problems no missing requires has documentation software works no missing BRs no incorrect permissions 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 201485] Review Request: openbabel - Chemistry software file format converter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: openbabel - Chemistry software file format converter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201485 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778, 201498 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-09 17:28 EST --- Good No dupes Compiles cleanly No permission issues No directory ownership problems rpmlint happy packages can compile against it without a problem (xdrawchem used as a test) Has documentation Licences fine Group okay Has R pkgconfig for the devel package APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201498] Review Request: xdrawchem - 2D chemical structures drawing 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: xdrawchem - 2D chemical structures drawing tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201498 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn|201485 | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201178] Review Request: pinball - Emilia Pinball game
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: pinball - Emilia Pinball game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201178
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-09 17:41 EST ---
Okay. I'm happy with them.
The software works fine
Good
Licence fine
Includes update-icon-cache
No permission problems
No directory ownership problems
Has documentation (devel doesn't, can be ignored)
Software works and installs
No missing R's when installed
No missing BRs or Rs when compiling
Bad
Missing rm -rf %{buildroot} at the start of %install
Fix the one bad and it's good to go.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-09 17:48 EST --- Branches built successfully. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201178] Review Request: pinball - Emilia Pinball game
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pinball - Emilia Pinball game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201178 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-09 17:56 EST --- Can you also check that if you use the fedora libtool if the .la files are still needed? Please just upload the new spec file (unless something happens in the 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 197649] Review Request: gnustep-make - GNUstep makefile 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: gnustep-make - GNUstep makefile package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197649 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |188267 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-09 18:02 EST --- Very well, I'll review this soon. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201941] Review Request: tetex-elsevier
Please 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-elsevier https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201941 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-09 18:03 EST --- New srpm (shipping the web page wasn't convenient): http://www.environnement.ens.fr/perso/dumas/fc-srpms/tetex-elsevier-0.1.20060416-2.src.rpm - Ship a README.fedora file instead of packaging the web 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 201000] Review Request: libFoundation - A free implementation of OpenStep's Foundation Kit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libFoundation - A free implementation of OpenStep's Foundation Kit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |188267 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-09 18:05 EST --- I'll review this, too, since it depends on #197649. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201000] Review Request: libFoundation - A free implementation of OpenStep's Foundation Kit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libFoundation - A free implementation of OpenStep's Foundation Kit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197649] Review Request: gnustep-make - GNUstep makefile 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: gnustep-make - GNUstep makefile package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197649 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201178] Review Request: pinball - Emilia Pinball game
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pinball - Emilia Pinball game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201178 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-09 18:16 EST --- It may be worth actually patching the app to use the fedora libtool and seems pretty trivial to do... in LoaderModule.cpp, Line 86 change lt_dlopen() to lt_dlopenext() and remove the extension on the passed in filename There may be a couple more of those, so you'll need to grep the source. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201842] Review Request: plotutils - GNU plotutils graphics libs and utils
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: plotutils - GNU plotutils graphics libs and utils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201842 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201842] Review Request: plotutils - GNU plotutils graphics libs and utils
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: plotutils - GNU plotutils graphics libs and utils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201842 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-09 18:28 EST --- Looking at the spec file You need Requires (post) : ldconfig unless you change post to be -p /sbin/ldconfig mkdir docs-to-include Where exactly does that get made? Why not just create a directory in the buildroot and shift from there rather than interfere with the dearchived source? This is not a complaint, just a suggestion. Other than patches, doing things in the BUILD I've always considered a bad idea (TM) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201485] Review Request: openbabel - Chemistry software file format converter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: openbabel - Chemistry software file format converter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201485 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-09 19:03 EST --- Package imported and built for devel, FC-4 and FC-5 branches requested. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201498] Review Request: xdrawchem - 2D chemical structures drawing 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: xdrawchem - 2D chemical structures drawing tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201498 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-09 20:12 EST --- Imported (and added dist tag), devel build successful, FC-4 and FC-5 braches requested. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201000] Review Request: libFoundation - A free implementation of OpenStep's Foundation Kit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libFoundation - A free implementation of OpenStep's Foundation Kit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201000 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-09 20:14 EST --- Shouldn't this block FE-REVIEW instead of FC-REVIEW? I don't think this is destined for core quite yet. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201000] Review Request: libFoundation - A free implementation of OpenStep's Foundation Kit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libFoundation - A free implementation of OpenStep's Foundation Kit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|188267 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-09 20:16 EST --- It should, my mistake. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197649] Review Request: gnustep-make - GNUstep makefile 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: gnustep-make - GNUstep makefile package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197649 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|188267 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-09 20:18 EST --- Corrected to block FE-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 189184] Review Request: perl-Email-Valid - check validity of email addresses
Please 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-Email-Valid - check validity of email addresses https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189184 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-09 20:36 EST --- In accordince with the stalled review policy, I will close out this review in one week. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201178] Review Request: pinball - Emilia Pinball game
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pinball - Emilia Pinball game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201178 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-09 20:41 EST --- Created an attachment (id=133896) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=133896action=view) Patch to allow ltdl to load from an so instead of an la file Hey Hans, Here's a patch to load the modules from the .so file if the .la file is not present. This patch would be a good starting point with upstream but may need a little work (I'm not sure whether the fallback lt_dlopen() is necessary and my C++ dates from before the STL so you can tell how rusty I am.) I'll submit my spec file as well so you can diff for the changes. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201178] Review Request: pinball - Emilia Pinball game
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pinball - Emilia Pinball game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201178 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-09 20:43 EST --- Created an attachment (id=133897) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=133897action=view) My spec file. Patch the source. Include the .so file and rm the .la file. P.S. I suck at pinball :-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-08-09 21:05 EST --- The only rpmlint complaint: W: gstm mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs There is a mix of indentation types used in the spec, but I don't know if there's a particular use that it's complaining about. What's the point of the BuildRequires: openssh? That just gives you ssh-keygen and some documentation; did you mean to BR: openssh-clients instead? Or, perhaps, did you mean to Requires: openssh-clients? Currently there's no SSH dependency in the final package. * source files match upstream: 7fa71b86969d8d695c3b062780a5694e gstm-1.2.tar.gz * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. O specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. ? BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * debuginfo package looks complete. X rpmlint is silent. ? final provides and requires are sane: gstm = 1.2-1.fc6 = libICE.so.6()(64bit) libORBit-2.so.0()(64bit) libSM.so.6()(64bit) libX11.so.6()(64bit) libart_lgpl_2.so.2()(64bit) libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libbonobo-2.so.0()(64bit) libbonobo-activation.so.4()(64bit) libbonoboui-2.so.0()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libgconf-2.so.4()(64bit) libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgmodule-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgnome-2.so.0()(64bit) libgnome-keyring.so.0()(64bit) libgnomecanvas-2.so.0()(64bit) libgnomeui-2.so.0()(64bit) libgnomevfs-2.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgthread-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangoft2-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpopt.so.0()(64bit) libxml2.so.2()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * no shared libraries are present. * package is not relocatable. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. * GUI app; desktop file looks OK and is installed properly. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-09 21:17 EST --- Bingo . Keepalive was set to OFF Enabled it and it works great... many thanks... BTW.. I did not change this parameter on my serveris it set to off by default ?? Perhaps something to check on install ??? Thanks again Peter -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177603] Review Request: libpri
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libpri https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177603 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO_REPORTER |ASSIGNED --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-09 21:49 EST --- Spec: http://repo.ocjtech.us/asterisk-1.2/fedora/5/SRPMS/libpri-1.2.3-1.fc5.spec SRPM: http://repo.ocjtech.us/asterisk-1.2/fedora/5/SRPMS/libpri-1.2.3-1.fc5.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199573] Review Request: BackupPC - high-performance backup system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: BackupPC - high-performance backup system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199573 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE OtherBugsDependingO|163779 | nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-09 21:53 EST --- Built A long time ago. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 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. Summary: Review Request: xfsdump https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201779 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197740] Review Request: dircproxy - IRC proxy server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: dircproxy - IRC proxy server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197740
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-09 23:17 EST ---
Whew! ok :)
1. It appears to me that this proxy can be run as a non-root user and still be
able to do everything needed except use the switch_user command. (Read
another way, it looks like you only need to run dircproxy as root if you want
to use switch_user.) Let's find a way to have this service start up as a
non-root user by default (perhaps just nobody as README.identd suggests).
It would seem to make sense to patch /etc/init.d/dircproxy to read values from
/etc/sysconf/dircproxy (as other init scripts do) to determine what user to
run under, etc.
2. The release tag here, as this is a beta package, should be something like:
0.x.beta%{?dist}
Where x is the actual release. (On coming out of beta, it should start being
the normal x%{?dist}.) See wiki - Packaging/NamingGuidelines.
3. rpmlint emits two warnings -- both of these are easy enough to fix.
+ package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
+ specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
+ dist tag is present.
X release tag doesn't meet naming guidelines.
+ build root is correct.
+ license field matches the actual license.
+ license is open source-compatible. License text included in package.
+ source files match upstream:
bd6abe933f90d80fbc71a00563f9c7de dircproxy-1.2.0-beta.tar.bz
bd6abe933f90d80fbc71a00563f9c7de dircproxy-1.2.0-beta.tar.bz.srpm
+ latest version is being packaged.
+ BuildRequires are proper.
+ package builds in mock (fc5/x86_64).
X rpmlint is silent.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] dircproxy]$ rpmlint dircproxy-1.2.0-0.beta.1.fc5.src.rpm
W: dircproxy mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs
[EMAIL PROTECTED] x86_64]$ rpmlint dircproxy-1.2.0-0.beta.1.fc5.x86_64.rpm
W: dircproxy wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/dircproxy-1.2.0/README.ssl
+ final provides and requires are sane:
** dircproxy-1.2.0-0.beta.1.fc5.x86_64.rpm
== provides
config(dircproxy) = 1.2.0-0.beta.1.fc5
dircproxy = 1.2.0-0.beta.1.fc5
== requires
/bin/sh
/usr/bin/perl
config(dircproxy) = 1.2.0-0.beta.1.fc5
perl(strict)
perl(vars)
+ no shared libraries are present.
+ package is not relocatable.
+ owns the directories it creates.
+ doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
+ no duplicates in %files.
+ file permissions are appropriate.
+ %clean is present.
O %check is not present, but there are no tests defined
O scriptlets look sane, and conform to ScriptletSnippets
+ code, not content.
+ documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
+ %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
+ no headers.
+ no pkgconfig files.
+ no libtool .la droppings.
+ not a GUI app.
+ not a web app.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196529] Review Request: gtkdatabox
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gtkdatabox https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196529 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-09 23:22 EST --- Spec file reflects requested changes. 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 201779] 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. Summary: Review Request: xfsdump https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201779 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
