[Bug 202496] Review Request: quodlibet - A music management program
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: quodlibet - A music management program https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202496 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 02:01 EST --- You missed one tab, in Source58. You should package COPYING, HACKING, NEWS and README as %doc. Also, what's the upstream for google.py? From the looks of things, it's you, which would be OK. It seems to me that there must be a simpler way to copy 50 sources into place. The README file says there are unit tests included, but I don't see them in the package. I built this for i386 and installed it on my home machine; it seems to run OK but I saw this odd bit on startup: Introspect error: The name org.gajim.dbus was not provided by any .service files I found errors with four plugins: ImportError: No module named musicbrainz ImportError: No module named CDDB ImportError: No module named lastfm ImportError: No module named path I guess the first three are optional requirements, which should be OK. The last one is odd; here's the full backtrace: Traceback (most recent call last): File /usr/share/quodlibet/plugins/songsmenu/shell.2.py, line 11, in ? import os File /usr/lib/python2.4/os.py, line 133, in ? from os.path import (curdir, pardir, sep, pathsep, defpath, extsep, altsep, ImportError: No module named path In addition, I chose View-File System and got this backtrace: Traceback (most recent call last): File /usr/share/quodlibet/qltk/quodlibet.py, line 518, in select_browser self.browser = Browser(library, player) File /usr/share/quodlibet/browsers/filesystem.py, line 67, in __init__ dt = DirectoryTree(initial=const.HOME, folders=folders) File /usr/share/quodlibet/qltk/filesel.py, line 68, in __init__ folders = filter(is_folder, folders) UnboundLocalError: local variable 'is_folder' referenced before assignment I exited the program which left the default view that way and now neither quodlibet nor exfalso will start. These are probably issues for upstream, but I just wanted to make sure that something wasn't missing from the package. For some reason I don't get any desktop menu entry, even though the desktop file looks OK to me. (I use KDE.) Review: * All 9000 source files match upstream: 195c39433b4e2a5bf930af7570b61f3e quodlibet-0.23.tar.gz 0b7d2ff31c4c113b52b74e1b8c867843 albumart.py 2385a15ea0f8c4ccbcf347eb9e5ef174 _amazon.py b5f85eb37b75acba938d082913d31b32 animosd.py 17421585b258ac44a0c04a50f06b25da ape2id3.py 680c7f7df3ac0cd949daa153c419e451 automask.py f3d86669ab18d4c25075212943cd74e1 autorating.py 9a984fb37453ff86ac861b01b31f6594 bookmarks.py 3865f4f3ece8d667c20fe3b8d34418dd brainz.py ab800ac4b48a0a228f1504914f198b5a browsefolders.py ae0be895b7441c9d38b0d8725f53f46c cddb.py 73c4409dfbdc8a9d8b7cd1a04f86ac23 clock.py c898ef2d38ad04b64137f0b6a8845852 fixlatin1tags.py 0fb2b513d89026c809b77c423c5080f8 gajim_status.py ae32b874d01fb16bed24626602ed2a98 html.py 4b71dfdbed6d5e8248028f62a3290888 iconv.py cd8f349983822b0429ef36d51c506992 ifp.py 4fd524e514cb0da6714628c7c1078242 importexport.py 57c82a80c4f30f6ac9b87801e7c80728 iradiolog.py d73546846d3280d0d3b2548a97bd8991 jep118.py 692f212693a86de9858e4979d6cec1b6 k3b.py 437ab5e65b7788641880b1ff7f4ae9f4 kakasi.py 57cf89358975fc75267bbff6d629749f lastfmsubmit.py c235836bb4b3f0480f674b6d21996407 nautilus.py 2a140f01260cb7dc5fc89f95fe11b4e0 notify.py d9868612bc1a13536f37d321bd4748d2 qlscrobbler.py 77dd97961b563ce6a0e0e596d98c39fe randomalbum.py f179c4db522561eed1629854b8de3a4d replaygain.py cb8f5b018503b2f0ad44fc10fc0bd3be reset.py dbd51ebd76b5a8e0a23558480c79da7b resub.py e5fc6a506f63de6f9661d2ded274d70d splitting.py 09c6da4082b6aa33d998991be7c508a8 _subprocobj.py 18ba6a789e95d5d202d911d826d94747 titlecase.py 12a36f1cc82b14cb25ba54b3d84503c8 trayicon.py 87065bf6d3b2084ca1a1c1f06f2b3f6c wikipedia.py 705e734f3d755a1e05854bc68ed90f6a write_cover.py Source58, pulled manually according to the comments, also matches: 5a9d7e599fab9be828a6244ee12e3542 shell.2.py?format=raw No upstream for google.py * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * 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. X license is open source-compatible. License text upstream but not 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 (just one tab) * final provides and requires are sane: _mmkeys.so()(64bit) quodlibet = 0.23-3.fc6 = /usr/bin/env
[Bug 202836] Review Request: abuse - The classic Crack-Dot-Com 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: abuse - The classic Crack-Dot-Com game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202836 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 02:55 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) I see upstream's website has title/header Abuse-SDL, and upstream tarball is named abuse_sdl. My inclinication would be to stick with abuse_sdl for package name, but that's just me. I can live with that too, but as said this really is THE abuse now these days hence my dropping of the -/_ sdl I don't want people to start looking for the main abuse package, cause there won't be one. But as said either way is eventually fine by me. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 178922] Review Request: asterisk - The Open Source PBX
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: asterisk - The Open Source PBX https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178922 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 03:05 EST --- I've just attempted to rebuild the SRPM, and I get this: gcc -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m32 -march=i386 -mtune=generic -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -pipe -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -Wmissing-declarations -Iinclude -I../include -D_REENTRANT -D_GNU_SOURCE -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m32 -march=i386 -mtune=generic -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -DZAPTEL_OPTIMIZATIONS -fomit-frame-pointer -Wno-missing-prototypes -Wno-missing-declarations -DZAPATA_PRI -DIAX_TRUNKING -DCRYPTO -fPIC-c -o chan_phone.o chan_phone.c chan_phone.c:41:29: error: linux/compiler.h: No such file or directory chan_phone.c: In function 'phone_write': chan_phone.c:750: warning: value computed is not used make[1]: *** [chan_phone.o] Error 1 Perhaps another buildreq missing? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202439] Review Request: frozen-bubble - Frozen Bubble arcade gam
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: frozen-bubble - Frozen Bubble arcade gam https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202439 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 03:07 EST --- Any chance we can get some progress on this, this is blocking the building of perl-SDL as I want to build them in quick succession so that it doesn't break peoples systems from updating. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199168] Review Request: CGAL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: CGAL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199168 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 03:29 EST --- (In reply to comment #13) (In reply to comment #10) (In reply to comment #9) Actions(In reply to comment #7) E: CGAL-devel script-without-shellbang /etc/profile.d/cgal.sh E: CGAL-devel script-without-shellbang /etc/profile.d/cgal.csh As far as I know, these rpmlint errors should be ignored. Nope, these scripts are incomplete. MUSTFIX This is really an ignorable error. Well, agreed, it's minor error, nevertheless it's an error and easy to fix. These files are sourced and not executed. Then they should NOT be executable = chmod -x Most of the files in /etc/profile.d don't have a shebang. Just because others are sloppy, doesn't mean I need to be. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201337] Review Request: gcin - Chinese input method server for Traditional Chinese
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gcin - Chinese input method server for Traditional Chinese https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201337 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 03:31 EST --- (In reply to comment #14) Spec URL: http://cle.linux.org.tw/candyz/gcin.spec SRPM URL: http://cle.linux.org.tw/candyz/gcin-1.2.1-7.src.rpm These seem OK for i386. Build is fine, rpmlint is clean, debuginfo is correct (this time it is really okay) and these seems to work well on i386. However, I only have i386 machine so I cannot check this on x86_64. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197814] Review Request: autogen
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: autogen https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197814 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 04:34 EST --- (In reply to comment #15) the alternatives binaries are set at 2755 rather than the more usual 755 - I'm guessing this is down to them being alternatives. The code was copied from sendmail, so if this is wrong, that is as well! That has nothing to do with alternatives. The sendmail executable is intentionally setgid smmsp [0], but having setgid root ones in this package sounds like a plain packaging bug which is also possibly a security issue. [0] http://www.sendmail.org/security/secure-install.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 202032] Review Request: efont-unicode-bdf: Unicode font by Electronic Font Open Laboratory
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: efont-unicode-bdf: Unicode font by Electronic Font Open Laboratory https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202032 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 06:10 EST --- Current srpm is in comment #12. I hope I can release this srpm. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 178922] Review Request: asterisk - The Open Source PBX
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: asterisk - The Open Source PBX https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178922 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 06:24 EST --- http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-dev/2006-July/021652.html(In reply to comment #50) Perhaps another buildreq missing? Something changed kernel-wise: http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-dev/2006-July/021652.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 199168] Review Request: CGAL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: CGAL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199168 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 07:48 EST --- (In reply to comment #16) E: CGAL-devel script-without-shellbang /etc/profile.d/cgal.sh E: CGAL-devel script-without-shellbang /etc/profile.d/cgal.csh These files are sourced and not executed. Then they should NOT be executable = chmod -x Agreed. It is patch in my spec file. Maybe should someone fill bugs about other packages that share that issue. I do not know how to use XML-XPC. TODO-latter (In reply to comment #8) - A more general design problem: Some headers in /usr/include/CGAL hard-code configuration-time detected * system features, e.g. the version of zlib and Qt The CGAL_FOOBAR_VERSION macros are not used in CGAL, actually. They are here only for internal uses (to be displayed by the testsuite). I can prune that from the package. * compiler characteristics, e.g. endianness. The endianness detection has been fixed in the upstream SVN repository yesterday, from your comment #10. It now uses macros, and no longer hard-code endianness. I will backport the patch in the src.rpm package. (In reply to comment #8) Further issues: - The *-devel package ships /usr/include/CORE IMO, this directory name is too general. - Static libs: /usr/lib/libCGALQt.a /usr/lib/libcore++.a These two issue last. And I do not see how to deal with that (especially the /usr/include/CORE issue, which cannot be fixed without changing CORE documentation and uses). (In reply to comment #10) CGAL is a meta-package that requires CGAL-libs, CGAL-devel, and CGAL-sources. Contradicts Fedora conventions and IMNSOH, is complete non-sense. Consider this to be a MUST FIX. Put the run-time libs into CGAL or CGAL-libs and the devel files into *-devel. As I said in comment #11, libs already are in CGAL-libs, and devel files are in CGAL-devel. I do not understand your point. What is the contradiction with Fedora conventions? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199168] Review Request: CGAL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: CGAL Alias: CGAL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199168 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||CGAL -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202032] Review Request: efont-unicode-bdf: Unicode font by Electronic Font Open Laboratory
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: efont-unicode-bdf: Unicode font by Electronic Font Open Laboratory https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202032 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 09:11 EST --- Sorry - been under the weather recently. I should have this done in the next 24 hours or 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 202946] New: Review Request: aqsis - 3D Rendering system
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=202946 Summary: Review Request: aqsis - 3D Rendering system 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.poolshark.org/src/aqsis.spec SRPM URL: http://www.poolshark.org/src/aqsis-1.0.1-1.src.rpm Description: Aqsis is a high quality, photorealistic, 3D rendering solution. It complies with the Renderman® interface standard defined by Pixar. Aqsis comprises a command line rendering tool, a tool for compiling shaders in the RSL language, a tool for preparing textures for optimal use, and various developer libraries to enable integration with third party tools. Notes to reviewer: - The latest stable release is not happy with g++ 4, so the package requires g++ 3.4 and adds some patching to remove CXXFLAGS options that g++ 3.4 doesn't like. Current CVS snapshots are ok with g++4, so this will disappear when 1.1 is released. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199168] Review Request: CGAL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: CGAL Alias: CGAL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199168 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 09:18 EST --- (In reply to comment #17) (In reply to comment #16) Contradicts Fedora conventions and IMNSOH, is complete non-sense. Consider this to be a MUST FIX. Put the run-time libs into CGAL or CGAL-libs and the devel files into *-devel. As I said in comment #11, libs already are in CGAL-libs, and devel files are in CGAL-devel. I do not understand your point. What is the contradiction with Fedora conventions? CGAL would be assumed to contain runtime libs and/or applications and must not depend on *-devel. I would rename CGAL-libs into CGAL and drop the current CGAL entirely. It doesn't make sense. Alternatively, if you want to keep *-libs, just drop CGAL entirely. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202033] Review Request: deltarpm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: deltarpm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202033 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 09:22 EST --- Even non-standard yum plugins are in System Environment/Base, so I guess this goes there as well. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202820] Review Request: libconfuse - A configuration file parser 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: libconfuse - A configuration file parser library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202820 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 09:35 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) New record for quickest review approval ? :-) I was wondering that myself. :p (In reply to comment #6) It was carefully prepared so the formal part was easy for me. I do put quite a bit of effort into trying to make the reviewer's job as easy as possible (and its a relativley simple package). :) PS: you should close the bug now Not quite yet, still waiting on the FC5 branch to be created. Once that's done, I'll close 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 197814] Review Request: autogen
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: autogen
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197814
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 10:07 EST ---
(In reply to comment #16)
(In reply to comment #15)
the alternatives binaries are set at 2755 rather than the more
usual 755 - I'm guessing this is down to them being alternatives. The code
was
copied from sendmail, so if this is wrong, that is as well!
That has nothing to do with alternatives. The sendmail executable is
intentionally setgid smmsp [0], but having setgid root ones in this package
sounds like a plain packaging bug which is also possibly a security issue.
Specifically, these lines:
%attr (2755, root, root)/%{_bindir}/autogen.columns
%attr (2755, root, root)/%{_bindir}/autogen.getdefs
Which should probably be:
%{_bindir}/autogen.columns
%{_bindir}/autogen.getdefs
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199168] Review Request: CGAL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: CGAL Alias: CGAL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199168 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 10:12 EST --- Update: Spec URL: http://www.di.ens.fr/~rineau/Fedora/CGAL-3.2.1-15.fc5.src.rpm SRPM URL: http://www.di.ens.fr/~rineau/Fedora/CGAL.spec %changelog * Thu Aug 17 2006 Laurent Rineau [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 3.2.1-15 - Change the permissions of /etc/profile.d/cgal.*sh - Remove the meta package CGAL. CGAL-libs is renamed CGAL. - Added two patchs: - CGAL-3.2.1-config.h-endianness_detection.patch which is an upstream patch to fix the endianness detection, so that is is no longer hard-coded in CGAL/compiler_config.h, - CGAL-3.2.1-install_cgal-no_versions_in_compiler_config.h.patch that removes hard-coded versions in CGAL/compiler_config.h. I have new errors from rpmlint: E: CGAL-devel script-without-shellbang /etc/profile.d/cgal.sh E: CGAL-devel non-executable-script /etc/profile.d/cgal.sh 0644 E: CGAL-devel script-without-shellbang /etc/profile.d/cgal.csh E: CGAL-devel non-executable-script /etc/profile.d/cgal.csh 0644 that comes from the new permissions of those files. And two new warnings: W: CGAL-devel non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/cgal.sh W: CGAL-devel non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/cgal.csh that could be fixed easily. Reporter Laurent Rineau ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Assigned To Ed Hill ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Save Changes Bug Comments Opened by Laurent Rineau ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) on 2006-07-17 13:36 EST [reply] Spec URL: http://www.di.ens.fr/~rineau/Fedora/CGAL-3.2.1-13-fc5.src.rpm SRPM URL: http://www.di.ens.fr/~rineau/Fedora/CGAL.spec Description: Computational Geometry Algorithms Library CGAL is a collaborative effort of several sites in Europe and Israel. The goal is to make the most important of the solutions and methods developed in computational geometry available to users in industry and academia in a C++ library. The goal is to provide easy access to useful, reliable geometric algorithms. Homepage: http://www.cgal.org/ Packager notes: * With CGAL-3.2.1, the tarball has been pruned from documentation files with undecided license, in order to make packaging possible. * A Debian package has been submitted, and has been accepted http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=251885 * Whereas the Debian packager choose to extract the core++ library and put it in a separate package, I choose to ship libcore++.a in the CGAL package. It could be modified, if needed. * rpmlint shows several errors or warnings. Some of them come from the meta-package CGAL that requires all sub-packages. * The -devel sub-package ships several static library. It is because upstream developers do not want to maintain SOMAJOR numbers for them, now, for libcore++.a, and libCGALQt.a 20060801173634 Comment #1 From Dennis Gilmore ([EMAIL PROTECTED])on 2006-08-01 17:36 EST [reply] static linking is highly frowned upon http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines for more info developer laziness is generally not considered a good enough reason. Looking at the sepc all those macros make the spec file confusing. Dont redefine name version and release. you need full urls to the upstream source tarball. I really sugegst reading the packaging guidelines and doing some work on them 20060802035012 Comment #2 From Laurent Rineau ([EMAIL PROTECTED])on 2006-08-02 03:50 EST [reply] 1/ I know that static libraries should be avoided, when possible (see my not in comment #1). In that case, the upstream developpers do not provide shared library for libCGALQt.a and libcore++.a. For libcore++, I could package Core separately (http://www.cs.nyu.edu/exact/core/download/core_v1.7/). But, for libCGALQt.a, do you see a solution? Waiting for the next release which could have shared version for all libraries cannot be a solution: CGAL releases come each year. It was really a chance that I manage to make the documention files removed from the upstream tarball of CGAL-3.2.1 (for license issues). 2/ As regards the macros... yes I know. This spec file is configurable, so that it can be applied to internal release of CGAL as well. What do you mean by redefining name of version or release? If I am not wrong, the conditionals make them be defined only once. If reviewers agreed that it is two much, I will pruned the spec file to remove the macro, as if the default values were hard-coded. 3/ For the upstream source tarball, I do not understand your point. spectool (from package fedora-rpmdevtools) can understand the macros and give the full URLs. I know pretty well the packaging guidelines. Please give me pointers to paragraphs that I could have missed. 20060814221318 Comment #3 From Ed Hill ([EMAIL
[Bug 202033] Review Request: deltarpm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: deltarpm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202033 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 10:22 EST --- Suggested changes were incorporated, please have a look (spec file path is the same). http://people.redhat.com/misa/rpms/deltarpm/deltarpm-3.3-3.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 193110] Review Request: python-sexy
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-sexy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193110 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 11:10 EST --- wrong URL for the srpm: http://darkenphoenix.free.fr/RPMS/RPMS/Extras/SRPMS/python-sexy-0.1.8-4.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 184530] Review Request: perl-RPM2
Please 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-RPM2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=184530 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 11:51 EST --- Isn't there anyone @redhat.com that can determine the original license of this module? Barring that, have we looked at RPM4 on CPAN? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199780] Review Request: dstat
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: dstat https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199780 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 12:10 EST --- e3bc24955e52a78166ff297f1a5e14ee dstat-0.6.3-5.src.rpm f833f3e0f8bb34ed50bf1388b7281cb7 dstat.spec a2df5d7fecc0115f8eef84141a068e86 dstat-0.6.3.tar.bz2 You can get rid of this line if you'd like: /usr/lib/rpm/brp-python-bytecompile # FC4 and FC5 run this automatically as you've noted, it gets run automatically on FC4+. If you are building for FC3, that script won't be present at all so the spec file will fail to build. All blockers have been resolved. I'm ready to ACCEPT this package, we just need to get you sponsored. As for reviewing and sponsorship. You get sponsored after you show an understanding for the guidelines. Understanding of the guidelines is all it takes to be able to do reviews. And since you're in the sponsorship process, I'll be watching over your shoulder so I can correct anything that you do wrong. (And you already know how to get into #fedora-extras on IRC which is a great resource for asking questions that might come up during the review process.) Basically, once you are sponsored, you will be able to make changes to any package in the CVS tree and be able to approve other people's packages. So having some examples showing you have the knowledge to do that well is essential. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202033] Review Request: deltarpm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: deltarpm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202033 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 12:28 EST --- You don't need to specify gcc as a BR. So, If you may remove this BR you are APPROVE. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201337] Review Request: gcin - Chinese input method server for Traditional Chinese
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gcin - Chinese input method server for Traditional Chinese https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201337 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 12:35 EST --- The -7 package still fails for me on x86_64: RPM build errors: File not found by glob: /var/tmp/gcin-1.2.1-7-root-mockbuild/usr/lib64/menu/gcin* File not found: /var/tmp/gcin-1.2.1-7-root-mockbuild/usr/lib64/gtk-2.0/immodules/im-gcin.so File not found: /var/tmp/gcin-1.2.1-7-root-mockbuild/usr/lib64/qt-3.3/plugins/inputmethods/libqgcin.so File not found: /var/tmp/gcin-1.2.1-7-root-mockbuild/usr/lib64/gcin/libgcin-im-client.so Error building package from gcin-1.2.1-7.src.rpm, See build log -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201337] Review Request: gcin - Chinese input method server for Traditional Chinese
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gcin - Chinese input method server for Traditional Chinese https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201337 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 12:52 EST --- (In reply to comment #16) The -7 package still fails for me on x86_64: Dear Jason; What does your full build log on x86_64 say? Perhaps a full build log will be useful. I cannot very this package other than 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 201337] Review Request: gcin - Chinese input method server for Traditional Chinese
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gcin - Chinese input method server for Traditional Chinese https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201337 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 13:31 EST --- Created an attachment (id=134397) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=134397action=view) Log from failing x86_64 build of gcin-1.2.1-7 in mock -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202946] Review Request: aqsis - 3D 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: aqsis - 3D Rendering system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202946 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 13:51 EST --- I could found compat-gcc-34-c++ on FC-5. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202946] Review Request: aqsis - 3D 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: aqsis - 3D Rendering system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202946 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 13:58 EST --- No, this is targeted at Rawhide and rawhide only. FC-5 needs compat-gcc-32-c++ and patch modifications... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191473] Review Request: kdiff3: Compare + merge 2 or 3 files or directories
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdiff3: Compare + merge 2 or 3 files or directories https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191473 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 15:13 EST --- Neal ping on status of your employer ok -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 186817] Review Request: kshutdown
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kshutdown https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=186817 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 15:15 EST --- 1+ month since last inquiry. I think it's same to assume submitter has gone awol, closing (WONTFIX?) Feel free to reopen, Kushal, if you're still out there, interested in 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 202004] Review Request: brandy
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: brandy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202004
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 15:16 EST ---
Is there a justification for examples in %{_datadir}? I see that you're even
copying them yourself
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 15:21 EST --- reassigned to the new nobody id to make it clear this has not been formally taken for review 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 195221] Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound 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: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195221 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 15:22 EST --- I can try reviewing this... Pierre, do you have any notions/intentions to maintain more than just this in Fedora Extras? I ask mainly because as your first reviewer, I'll need to also sponsor you. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197732] Review Request: optipng - a PNG optimizer and 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: optipng - a PNG optimizer and converter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197732 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: optipng - a |Review Request: optipng - a |PNG optimizer and converter |PNG optimizer and converter |- need a Sponsor| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 15:23 EST --- FE-NEEDSPONSOR blocker already set, no need to be in Summary too. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202946] Review Request: aqsis - 3D 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: aqsis - 3D Rendering system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202946 [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 195221] Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound 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: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195221 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 15:25 EST --- Duh, just checked all(most?) other bugs depending on this one, and they're mostly yours too. Nevermind the silly question. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195221] Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound 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: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195221 [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 199627] Review Request: kooldock - dock for KDE with great visual effects and enhancements
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kooldock - dock for KDE with great visual effects and enhancements https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199627 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 15:28 EST --- Fair enough, game on. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201502] Review Request: php-pear-PhpDocumentor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: php-pear-PhpDocumentor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201502 [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 202837] Review Request: fRaBs - Free data files for abuse the 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: fRaBs - Free data files for abuse the game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202837 [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 202836] Review Request: abuse - The classic Crack-Dot-Com 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: abuse - The classic Crack-Dot-Com game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202836 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] CC|[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 202837] Review Request: fRaBs - Free data files for abuse the 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: fRaBs - Free data files for abuse the game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202837 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 15:43 EST --- Simple, clean, and best of all, it works! 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 197974] Tracking bug for reviews stalled pending the adoption of guidelines
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Tracking bug for reviews stalled pending the adoption of guidelines Alias: FE-GUIDELINES https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197974 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||201502 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199627] Review Request: kooldock - dock for KDE with great visual effects and enhancements
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kooldock - dock for KDE with great visual effects and enhancements https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199627 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||177841 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200662] Review Request: lostirc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: lostirc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200662 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||z) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199627] Review Request: kooldock - dock for KDE with great visual effects and enhancements
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kooldock - dock for KDE with great visual effects and enhancements https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199627 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 16:04 EST --- Michal, the package looks in pretty good shape, now for some testing... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199627] Review Request: kooldock - dock for KDE with great visual effects and enhancements
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kooldock - dock for KDE with great visual effects and enhancements https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199627 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 16:08 EST --- Why have you added FE-NEEDSPONSOR block? I'm already sponsored and I'm owner of kadu and python-mutagen 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 195221] Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound 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: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195221 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 16:10 EST --- MUSTFIX: lib-devel contains pkgconfig file(s), so it ought to: Requires: pkgconfig Can you explain/justify the existence of *both* a pulseaudio-devel and a pulseaudio-libs-devel pkg? I'm also inclined to say that there's needless complexity splitting out separate packages for module-alsa, lib-glib2, lib-zeroconf subpkgs. These are pretty low-level, core libraries that will (should?!) be present on any audio-capable/desktop-config machine. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 203019] New: Review Request: pyxdg
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=203019 Summary: Review Request: pyxdg 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- [EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED] m I've been asked to build alacarte into Fedora Core, it requires pyxdg, so we'll need to get pyxdg into core also. http://people.redhat.com/rstrode/pyxdg/pyxdg.spec http://people.redhat.com/rstrode/pyxdg/pyxdg-0.15-3.fc6.src.rpm -- 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 203019] Review Request: pyxdg
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pyxdg https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203019 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 16:23 EST --- Tech ack. Is that the extras package? -- 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 203022] New: Review Request: alacarte
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=203022 Summary: Review Request: alacarte 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- [EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED] m,[EMAIL PROTECTED] I've been asked to build alacarte into Fedora Core so that we can ship a more complete gnome 2.16 release., it requires pyxdg, so I've filed bug 203019 to track getting it into Core as well. http://people.redhat.com/rstrode/alacarte/alacarte.spec http://people.redhat.com/rstrode/alacarte/alacarte-0.8-8.fc6.src.rpm -- 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 203019] Review Request: pyxdg
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pyxdg https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203019 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||203022 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 203019] Review Request: pyxdg
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pyxdg https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203019 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||203022 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 16:27 EST --- yup -- 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 203019] Review Request: pyxdg
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pyxdg https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203019 [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 203022] Review Request: alacarte
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: alacarte https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203022 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||188267 -- 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 203022] Review Request: alacarte
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: alacarte https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203022 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||188267 -- 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 199627] Review Request: kooldock - dock for KDE with great visual effects and enhancements
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kooldock - dock for KDE with great visual effects and enhancements https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199627 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|177841 | nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 16:32 EST --- Because I'm lame and read comment #1 that said you were looking for a sponsor, and *assumed*... (: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202876] Review Request: perl-Data-Alias
Please 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-Data-Alias https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202876 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202033] Review Request: deltarpm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: deltarpm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202033 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 16:34 EST --- Removed, in deltarpm 3.3-4 (I didn't like 3.3-3 anyway) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198562] Review Request: zabbix - Open-source monitoring solution for your IT infrastructure
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: zabbix - Open-source monitoring solution for your IT infrastructure https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198562 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 16:36 EST --- Probably want to Require: fping so that the icmpping and icmppingsec checks 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 199627] Review Request: kooldock - dock for KDE with great visual effects and enhancements
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kooldock - dock for KDE with great visual effects and enhancements https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199627 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 16:39 EST --- (In reply to comment #23) Because I'm lame and read comment #1 that said you were looking for a sponsor, and *assumed*... (: Never mind ;) So, what with approvement this package to extras? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198562] Review Request: zabbix - Open-source monitoring solution for your IT infrastructure
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: zabbix - Open-source monitoring solution for your IT infrastructure https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198562 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 16:42 EST --- The web interface also needs to Require: php-gd for graphs to 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 203019] Review Request: pyxdg
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: pyxdg
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203019
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |NEEDINFO
OtherBugsDependingO|188267 |188268
nThis||
Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]
||)
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 16:44 EST ---
Requires: python-abi = %(%{__python} -c import sys ; print
sys.version[:3]),
%{python_sitelib} is no longer needed. This is automagic now.
Otherwise approved.
Please coordinate its move from Extras to Core. Added to dist-fc6. Close when
built for rawhide (and Extras is removed)
--
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 202853] Review Request: wfut - WorldForge media updater 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: wfut - WorldForge media updater tool Alias: wfut https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202853 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 16:51 EST --- Added a .desktop file and icon, and removed the unnecessary shell script in /usr/bin: http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/wfut.spec http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/wfut-1.0-3.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 199627] Review Request: kooldock - dock for KDE with great visual effects and enhancements
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kooldock - dock for KDE with great visual effects and enhancements https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199627 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 16:54 EST --- looks good, APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201170] Review Request: jfbterm - Japanese Console for Linux Frame Buffer Device
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jfbterm - Japanese Console for Linux Frame Buffer Device https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201170 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 17:01 EST --- #20 : This is probably why I'm seeing cp: cannot stat `/usr/share/fonts/japanese/misc/b16.pcf.gz': No such file or directory Can you fix the spec file and just upload that? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 17:02 EST --- Going down my checklist again... 1. One rpmlint warning (W: crm114-emacs no-documentation), which was deemed acceptable. 2. Package appears to meet Package Naming Guidelines. 3. Spec is named crm114.spec, check. 4. Package meets Packaging Guidelines, AFAICT. 5. Licensed under GPL, check. 6. License: GPL, check. 7. %doc contains GPL-License.txt, which I missed on my first pass. 8. Spec appears to be American English. 9. Spec seems legible. 10. md5sum on tarball matches upstream now (not sure what was up with that). 11. Compiles and builds on i386/ppc (my two supported build platforms). 12. x86_64 excluded, as per dependency on tre-devel. You noted bug #202893, the blocker. Good. 13. Builds under Plague, so I imagine all of its dependencies are listed. 14. n/a, I think. 15. n/a (no shared libs) 16. n/a 17. You changed crm114-emacs' Req to emacs-el, resolving this issue. 18. No duplicate %files entries. 19. Defattr seems valid. 20. Has valid %clean section. 21. Macro use appears consistent. 22. Package contains code, not content. 23. Documentation makes up over 50% of the package's size, but that's still not that much. 24. I don't see anything in %doc affecting runtime. 25. No header files or static libraries. 26. No .pc files. 27. No library files, much less ones with suffixes. 28. n/a (no -devel subpackage) 29. No .la files. 30. No GUI applications. 31. Doesn't own any directories owned by other packages (to the best of my knowledge). 32. n/a, I overlooked GPL-License.txt 33. I'm not sure there are any description/summary translations available. 34. Package builds as i386 and ppc in Plague (and thus Mock). 35. Package won't build on x86_64 due to dependency's ExcludeArch: x86_64; other architectures, yes. 36. I can't verify full functionality, but the binary doesn't segfault on i386/ppc. 37. No scriptlets. 38. The -emacs subpackage doesn't depend on the main package, ergo no listed Req. Unless I screwed something up, it looks like crm114 is APPROVED. Go forth and import. :-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198562] Review Request: zabbix - Open-source monitoring solution for your IT infrastructure
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: zabbix - Open-source monitoring solution for your IT infrastructure https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198562 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 17:09 EST --- Requires: on mysql-server removed, Requires: for fping (main package) and php-gd (-web package) added. Updated files: http://wilsonet.com/packages/zabbix/zabbix.spec http://wilsonet.com/packages/zabbix/zabbix-1.1.1-2.fc6.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 203022] Review Request: alacarte
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: alacarte https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203022 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]| |) | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 17:09 EST --- John, can you make sure this gets dropped from 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 203019] Review Request: pyxdg
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pyxdg https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203019 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]| |) | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 17:10 EST --- John can you make this gets dropped from 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 203022] Review Request: alacarte
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: alacarte https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203022 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 17:13 EST --- Jesse, no package is getting removed. The menu editor ships in gnome-menus, but we still need gnome-menus. (we could potentially drop the editor from the build though I guess) -- 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 202032] Review Request: efont-unicode-bdf: Unicode font by Electronic Font Open Laboratory
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: efont-unicode-bdf: Unicode font by Electronic Font
Open Laboratory
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202032
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 17:23 EST ---
Good
Builds cleanly in mock and installs fine.
rpmlint shows no problems
Directories are correctly owned
spec file is in american english
no ownership conflicts
Not showing up any duplicates
upstream corresponds with package md5sums
Same version
Correct use of scriptlets
Consistent use of macros
Bad
Should be
Requires: mkfontdir %{_sbindir}/chkfontpath
This is the only issue I can spot, so fix it and it should be 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 202670] Review Request: bygfoot - Football Manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: bygfoot - Football Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202670
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 17:32 EST ---
Good
Software works!
rpmlint is clean on all packages and subpackages
builds cleanly in mock
no duplicates in the rpm
consistent use of macros in the spec file
spec file is in american english
upstream version same as this version
md5sums match
no ownership problems
correct use of scripts
Docs okay
Needs work
%files
%{_bindir}/*
If you change this to %{_bindir}/bygfoot*
then I'm happy to FE-APPROVE 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 202946] Review Request: aqsis - 3D 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: aqsis - 3D Rendering system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202946 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 17:40 EST --- I forgot to mention in the notes that the main package contains some header files that rpmlint will complain about. Those are ok, shader code is compiled during runtime by the rendering engine. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202670] Review Request: bygfoot - Football Manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bygfoot - Football Manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202670 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 17:43 EST --- Corrected SPEC file: http://ecik.zspswidwin.pl/bygfoot/bygfoot.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 197814] Review Request: autogen
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: autogen https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197814 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 17:51 EST --- Spec URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/autogen.spec Fixes the problems in #16/#17 and another issue it had. Now builds cleanly, doesn't invade neighbouring countries and destroys 99% of all known cults dead. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202670] Review Request: bygfoot - Football Manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bygfoot - Football Manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202670 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 18:01 EST --- What is pkgconfig in there for? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 203039] New: Review Request: perl-Sys-Virt - Represent and manage a libvirt hypervisor connection
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=203039 Summary: Review Request: perl-Sys-Virt - Represent and manage a libvirt hypervisor connection 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://ftp.kspei.com/pub/steve/rpms/perl-Sys-Virt/perl-Sys-Virt.spec SRPM URL: http://ftp.kspei.com/pub/steve/rpms/perl-Sys-Virt-0.1.1-2.src.rpm Description: The Sys::Virt module provides a Perl XS binding to the libvirt virtual machine management APIs. This allows machines running within arbitrary virtualization containers to be managed with a consistent API. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202901] Review Request: pgFouine - PostgreSQL log analyzer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pgFouine - PostgreSQL log analyzer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202901 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 18:13 EST --- Per Toshio's review; here is the new spec and srpm: Spec URL: http://developer.postgresql.org/~devrim/rpms/other/pgfouine/pgfouine.spec SRPM URL: http://developer.postgresql.org/~devrim/rpms/other/pgfouine/pgfouine-0.7-3.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 202004] Review Request: brandy
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: brandy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202004 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 18:53 EST --- Why not:: %doc examples -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 19:08 EST --- Imported and built for devel. FC5 branch requested. Should I try and convince FESCo to allow FC4 branch? tre managed to get in... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 186817] Review Request: kshutdown
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kshutdown https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=186817 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|WONTFIX |NOTABUG OtherBugsDependingO|163776, 177841 |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 202876] Review Request: perl-Data-Alias
Please 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-Data-Alias https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202876 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 20:38 EST --- You should be careful with that method of requires filtering, because there's no guarantee that __perl_provides will always be /usr/lib/rpm/perl.prov. The safest method is detailed in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Perl. That said, many modules do use it and it is relatively simple. Other than that there's not much to say. * source files match upstream: 390fc2fefbf3fa9bf30d482a46989953 Data-Alias-1.0.tar.gz * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * 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 not included upstream. * 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. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: Alias.so()(64bit) perl(Data::Alias) = 1.0 perl-Data-Alias = 1.0-1.fc6 = perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(Data::Alias) = 1.0 perl(DynaLoader) perl(Exporter) * %check is present and all tests pass: All tests successful, 1 test skipped. Files=26, Tests=561, 1 wallclock secs ( 0.78 cusr + 0.25 csys = 1.03 CPU) The skipped test checks for the //= operator and won't run otherwise; I think that's a Perl6 thing. * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * 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. 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|CLOSED |NEW Keywords||Reopened Resolution|NOTABUG | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202905] Review Request: perl-POE-Component-Server-HTTP
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-POE-Component-Server-HTTP https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202905 [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 202496] Review Request: quodlibet - A music management program
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: quodlibet - A music management program https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202496 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 21:11 EST --- Spec: http://repo.ocjtech.us/misc/fedora/development/SRPMS/quodlibet-0.23-4.fc6.spec SRPM: http://repo.ocjtech.us/misc/fedora/development/SRPMS/quodlibet-0.23-4.fc6.src.rpm * Thu Aug 17 2006 Jeffrey C. Ollie [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 0.23-4 - Instead of manually copying all of the plugins, pack them into a tarball and include a script for generating 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 201337] Review Request: gcin - Chinese input method server for Traditional Chinese
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gcin - Chinese input method server for Traditional Chinese https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201337 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 21:12 EST --- Again, the new file: Spec URL: http://cle.linux.org.tw/candyz/gcin.spec SRPM URL: http://cle.linux.org.tw/candyz/gcin-1.2.2-2.src.rpm i386 mock builds cleanly Hope the x86_64 problems will be fixed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201170] Review Request: jfbterm - Japanese Console for Linux Frame Buffer Device
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jfbterm - Japanese Console for Linux Frame Buffer Device https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201170 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 21:27 EST --- (In reply to comment #21) #20 : cp: cannot stat `/usr/share/fonts/japanese/misc/b16.pcf.gz': No such file or directory Yes, this is because I changed the directory in efont-unicode-bdf, is it okay? The spec of jfbterm with efont-unicode-bdf 0.4.2-5 is: http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/extras/development/SPECS/jfbterm.spec (0.4.7-4) This should fix the error on the comment #20. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 Keywords|Reopened| CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 21:30 EST --- Interesting, so you can get a package back to the NEW state by closing and then reopening it. Russell, lately I've been sponsoring various Red Hat folks on the basis of a single package as long as they're responsive, which it looks like you've been. Unfortunately, I don't really have the means to test this properly. If there's someone who is willing to chip in with the testing, I'm willing to sponsor and do 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 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] 2006-08-17 21:32 EST --- I'll volunteer to test. Every box of mine is XFS :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202529] Review Request: rt2500-(kmod-common)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: rt2500-(kmod-common) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202529 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 21:34 EST --- Spec URL: http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/SPECS/rt2500.spec SRPM URL: http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/5/SRPMS/rt2500-1.1.0.cvs2006081716-4_FC5.src.rpm Description: Diagnostic tools for Ralink Wireless devices rpmlint -1 success... (i686, debug, src) There is still a problem with RaConfig2500 for asking root password with pam... ( Any info about 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 202876] Review Request: perl-Data-Alias
Please 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-Data-Alias https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202876 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 21:36 EST --- +Import to CVS +Add to owners.list +Bump release, build for devel +devel build succeeds +Request branching (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 201337] Review Request: gcin - Chinese input method server for Traditional Chinese
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gcin - Chinese input method server for Traditional Chinese https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201337 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 21:55 EST --- I use mock to build i386 and x86_64 and ppc version for FC5, and all those builds are cleanly. Also, I use mock to build it for FC4, and the builds are cleanly, too. But I use my i386 machine to build all those, so I don't know will it builds cleanly on x86_64 machines. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202496] Review Request: quodlibet - A music management program
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: quodlibet - A music management program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202496
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 22:09 EST ---
That is significantly shorter. I was just hoping that some specfile wizard knew
of a way to loop over those %{S:n} entries.
In any case, it does look like you addressed the %doc issue even though you
didn't mention it.
The spaces-tabs thing is still there; Source1, 2, and 3 are all tab-indented
while none of the other lines are. Not that this is a huge deal, but I have to
mention it.
What about the problems I had in testing? It would be nice to know they're
expected, if there are missing dependencies or if something went wrong in the
build. And do you have any idea where the _sanity.sh unit tests promised by the
HACKING file are?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202905] Review Request: perl-POE-Component-Server-HTTP
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-POE-Component-Server-HTTP https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202905 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 22:57 EST --- Man, I have to say I really wish the Perl people would take their licensing a bit more seriously. This package says it's released under the same terms as POE. POE says it's released under the same terms as Perl. Love the double indirection. Thanks for the great comment about the POE::API::Peek requirement. The remaining tests seem to run fine in mock and I'd expect them to be OK in the buildsys. * source files match upstream: d20963ebc65bebea4c863813861b9985 POE-Component-Server-HTTP-0.09.tar.gz * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * 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 not included upstream. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: perl(POE::Component::Server::HTTP) = 0.09 perl(POE::Component::Server::HTTP::Connection) perl(POE::Component::Server::HTTP::Request) perl(POE::Component::Server::HTTP::Response) perl-POE-Component-Server-HTTP = 0.09-1.fc6 = perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(Carp) perl(Exporter) perl(File::Spec) perl(HTTP::Date) perl(HTTP::Request) perl(HTTP::Response) perl(HTTP::Status) perl(POE) perl(POE::Component::Server::HTTP::Connection) perl(POE::Component::Server::HTTP::Request) perl(POE::Component::Server::HTTP::Response) perl(POE::Component::Server::TCP) perl(Socket) perl(Sys::Hostname) perl(bytes) perl(constant) perl(strict) perl(vars) * %check is present and all tests pass: All tests successful. Files=3, Tests=26, 11 wallclock secs ( 0.45 cusr + 0.13 csys = 0.58 CPU) * 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. 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 202908] Review Request: perl-POE-Component-Server-XMLRPC - Publish POE event handlers via XMLRPC over HTTP
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-POE-Component-Server-XMLRPC - Publish POE event handlers via XMLRPC over HTTP https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202908 [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 203019] Review Request: pyxdg
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pyxdg https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203019 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 23:31 EST --- Has someone actually talked to the maintainer of alacarte in Extras? He was asking on #fedora-devel Tuesday whether or not someone would at least talk to him about it, given that the release notes indicate that the package is supposed to go into FC6. I know everyone is busy but it would be really nice if there was a bit more communication with the Extras maintainers when packages go to 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 203019] Review Request: pyxdg
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pyxdg https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203019 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 23:32 EST --- BTW, releases alacarte Found package alacarte in owners.list: Distro: Fedora Extras Desc: Simple menu editor for GNOME Owner:[EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- 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 203039] Review Request: perl-Sys-Virt - Represent and manage a libvirt hypervisor connection
Please 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-Sys-Virt - Represent and manage a libvirt hypervisor connection https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203039 [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 203019] Review Request: pyxdg
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pyxdg https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203019 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 23:45 EST --- Jason, John is on the CC list for this bug report. -- 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
