[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] 2006-08-28 02:51 EST --- Ok, the CLA is now accepted. I've added myself to the cvsextras group, so feel free to approve 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 204151] Review Request:perl-File-NFSLock - Perl module to do NFS (or not) locking
Please 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-File-NFSLock - Perl module to do NFS (or not) locking https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204151 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-28 02:02 EST --- I see there's an examples directory/script, but it's not included in %doc. Let's include that, and this package is approved. + 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. + source files match upstream: 68bddc5e2c32d9748ae689f398fc1147 File-NFSLock-1.20.tar.gz 68bddc5e2c32d9748ae689f398fc1147 File-NFSLock-1.20.tar.gz.srpm + latest version is being packaged. + BuildRequires are proper. + package builds in mock (5/x86_64) + rpmlint is silent. + final provides and requires are sane: ** perl-File-NFSLock-1.20-1.fc5.noarch.rpm == rpmlint == provides perl(File::NFSLock) = 1.20 perl-File-NFSLock = 1.20-1.fc5 == requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(Carp) perl(Exporter) perl(strict) perl(vars) + package is not relocatable. + owns the directories it creates. + doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + %clean is present. + %check is present and all tests pass: All tests successful. Files=12, Tests=161, 42 wallclock secs ( 0.69 cusr + 0.82 csys = 1.51 CPU) + 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. + not a GUI app. + not a web app. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2006-08-28 01:50 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) > Sure we could split libri2rib into a seperate RPM, but I'm not convinced it's > worth the effort at this point since it doesn't like as though it is usable > outside of aqsis at all. Works by me. Ok, so the package builds under mock for me, but rpmlint complains: [EMAIL PROTECTED] aqsis]$ rpmlint aqsis-1.0.1-2.fc6.x86_64.rpm W: aqsis incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.0.1-1 1.0.1-2.fc6 W: aqsis objdump-failed objdump: /tmp/aqsis-1.0.1-2.fc6.x86_64.rpm.18847/usr/lib64/aqsis/libbake2tif.so.0.0.0: File format not recognized E: aqsis binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/aqsis/libdisplay.so.0.0.0 ['/usr/lib64'] W: aqsis objdump-failed objdump: /tmp/aqsis-1.0.1-2.fc6.x86_64.rpm.18847/usr/lib64/aqsis/libgif2tif.so.0.0.0: File format not recognized W: aqsis objdump-failed objdump: /tmp/aqsis-1.0.1-2.fc6.x86_64.rpm.18847/usr/lib64/aqsis/libjpg2tif.so.0.0.0: File format not recognized W: aqsis objdump-failed objdump: /tmp/aqsis-1.0.1-2.fc6.x86_64.rpm.18847/usr/lib64/aqsis/libpcx2tif.so.0.0.0: File format not recognized W: aqsis objdump-failed objdump: /tmp/aqsis-1.0.1-2.fc6.x86_64.rpm.18847/usr/lib64/aqsis/libppm2tif.so.0.0.0: File format not recognized W: aqsis objdump-failed objdump: /tmp/aqsis-1.0.1-2.fc6.x86_64.rpm.18847/usr/lib64/aqsis/libtga2tif.so.0.0.0: File format not recognized W: aqsis objdump-failed objdump: /tmp/aqsis-1.0.1-2.fc6.x86_64.rpm.18847/usr/lib64/libslpp.so.0.0.0: File format not recognized E: aqsis shlib-with-non-pic-code /usr/lib64/libslpp.so.0.0.0 W: aqsis devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/aqsis/shaders/bake.h W: aqsis devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/aqsis/shaders/DPProctext.h W: aqsis devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/aqsis/shaders/patterns.h W: aqsis devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/aqsis/shaders/noises.h The headers sound like they should be there (comment #1); the first warning is an easyfix (needs a changelog entry). The rpath error needs to be dealt with; the objdump errors may be related to that I ran rpmlint against them on my fc5 system (anyone know an easy way to install rpmlint in a mock chroot?), but there's some additional funkiness in build.log: + /usr/lib/rpm/find-debuginfo.sh /builddir/build/BUILD/aqsis-1.0.1 extracting debug info from /var/tmp/aqsis-1.0.1-2.fc6-root-mockbuild/usr/lib64/libargparse.so.0.0.0 extracting debug info from /var/tmp/aqsis-1.0.1-2.fc6-root-mockbuild/usr/lib64/libaqsistypes.so.0.0.0 extracting debug info from /var/tmp/aqsis-1.0.1-2.fc6-root-mockbuild/usr/lib64/libcodegenvm.so.0.0.0 extracting debug info from /var/tmp/aqsis-1.0.1-2.fc6-root-mockbuild/usr/lib64/librib2.so.0.0.0 extracting debug info from /var/tmp/aqsis-1.0.1-2.fc6-root-mockbuild/usr/lib64/librib2ri.so.0.0.0 extracting debug info from /var/tmp/aqsis-1.0.1-2.fc6-root-mockbuild/usr/lib64/librib2stream.so.0.0.0 extracting debug info from /var/tmp/aqsis-1.0.1-2.fc6-root-mockbuild/usr/lib64/libslparse.so.0.0.0 extracting debug info from /var/tmp/aqsis-1.0.1-2.fc6-root-mockbuild/usr/lib64/libshadervm.so.0.0.0 extracting debug info from /var/tmp/aqsis-1.0.1-2.fc6-root-mockbuild/usr/lib64/libshaderexecenv.so.0.0.0 extracting debug info from /var/tmp/aqsis-1.0.1-2.fc6-root-mockbuild/usr/lib64/libraytrace.so.0.0.0 extracting debug info from /var/tmp/aqsis-1.0.1-2.fc6-root-mockbuild/usr/lib64/libslpp.so.0.0.0 extracting debug info from /var/tmp/aqsis-1.0.1-2.fc6-root-mockbuild/usr/lib64/libri2rib.so.0.0.0 extracting debug info from /var/tmp/aqsis-1.0.1-2.fc6-root-mockbuild/usr/lib64/libslxargs.so.0.0.0 extracting debug info from /var/tmp/aqsis-1.0.1-2.fc6-root-mockbuild/usr/lib64/aqsis/libdisplay.so.0.0.0 extracting debug info from /var/tmp/aqsis-1.0.1-2.fc6-root-mockbuild/usr/lib64/aqsis/libgif2tif.so.0.0.0 extracting debug info from /var/tmp/aqsis-1.0.1-2.fc6-root-mockbuild/usr/lib64/aqsis/libjpg2tif.so.0.0.0 extracting debug info from /var/tmp/aqsis-1.0.1-2.fc6-root-mockbuild/usr/lib64/aqsis/libppm2tif.so.0.0.0 extracting debug info from /var/tmp/aqsis-1.0.1-2.fc6-root-mockbuild/usr/lib64/aqsis/libpcx2tif.so.0.0.0 extracting debug info from /var/tmp/aqsis-1.0.1-2.fc6-root-mockbuild/usr/lib64/aqsis/libtga2tif.so.0.0.0 extracting debug info from /var/tmp/aqsis-1.0.1-2.fc6-root-mockbuild/usr/lib64/aqsis/libbake2tif.so.0.0.0 extracting debug info from /var/tmp/aqsis-1.0.1-2.fc6-root-mockbuild/usr/lib64/libddmanager.so.0.0.0 extracting debug info from /var/tmp/aqsis-1.0.1-2.fc6-root-mockbuild/usr/lib64/libaqsis.so.0.0.0 extracting debug info from /var/tmp/aqsis-1.0.1-2.fc6-root-mockbuild/usr/bin/aqsl extracting debug info from /var/tmp/aqsis-1.0.1-2.fc6-root-mockbuild/usr/bin/aqsltell extracting debug inf
[Bug 204151] Review Request:perl-File-NFSLock - Perl module to do NFS (or not) locking
Please 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-File-NFSLock - Perl module to do NFS (or not) locking https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204151 [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 198830] Review Request: libmodelfile - library for accessing WorldForge model files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libmodelfile - library for accessing WorldForge model files Alias: libmodelfile https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198830 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-27 23:45 EST --- Updated to address MUSTFIX items from comment #2: http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/libmodelfile-0.1.92-2.src.rpm http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/libmodelfile.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 200976] Review Request: cyphesis - WorldForge game 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: cyphesis - WorldForge game server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200976 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-27 23:42 EST --- Updated to latest upstream release: http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/cyphesis-0.5.9-1.src.rpm http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/cyphesis.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 203964] Review Request: libburn - Library for reading, mastering and writing optical discs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libburn - Library for reading, mastering and writing optical discs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203964 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-27 22:59 EST --- Wheee! I was thinking that cdrskin version had been set by then and would be used. Silly me. This extra version stuff is fun (: I don't want there to be two packages owning the libburn include dir, perhaps upstream could be convinced at some point to drop libisofs.h into a libisofs folder instead of a libburn folder... (hint hint (: ) Package imported and built for development. Branch requested for 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 203964] Review Request: libburn - Library for reading, mastering and writing optical discs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libburn - Library for reading, mastering and writing optical discs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203964 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-27 22:21 EST --- (In reply to comment #8) > - libisofs requires libburn devel for directory ownership Personally, I don't see a huge problem with multiple packages laying claim to a directory, not sure what the official stance on this is. It'd allow you to only install libisofs-devel without having to install libburn-devel, but how much we really care about being able to do that, I dunno. One minor thing, you used %mainver for that added Requires:, right below another Requires: that uses %version. No biggie though, everything else is golden. My name is Jarod Wilson, and I APPROVE this package. :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192049] Review Request: gnash - GNU Flash player
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gnash - GNU Flash player https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192049 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202356] Review Request: terminus-font - Clean fixed width font
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: terminus-font - Clean fixed width font
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202356
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-27 20:02 EST ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> W: terminus-font-x11 dangerous-command-in-%preun rm
>
> Why remove those files?
Hello, Hans:
You have to take a "%ghost file" method.
i.e.
In install stage:
touch $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{local_x11_font_dir}/fonts.dir etc
In file entry:
%ghost %verify(not md5 size mtime) %{local_x11_font_dir}/fonts.dir etc
... and get rid of rm command from %preun entry (I think that the
whole %preun stage is unnecessary).
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197198] Review Request: ntop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ntop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197198 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-27 19:58 EST --- 2 other remarks: ntop segfaults when interrupted by ctrl-C when launched on the console. in /var/ntop many files belong to root. I don't know if it is right or wrong. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197198] Review Request: ntop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ntop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197198
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-27 19:50 EST ---
* Among the rpmling warning there is:
W: ntop devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libntop.so
W: ntop devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libmyrrd.so
W: ntop devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libntopreport.so
I think those files shouldn't be shipped.
* Seems like you removed too much in the plugins directory,
there aren't plugins anymore...
I propose something along
for file in %{buildroot}/%{_libdir}/%{name}/plugins/*.so; do
if test -L $file; then
base=`basename $file .so`
mv %{buildroot}/%{_libdir}/%{name}/plugins/$base-%{version}.so $file
fi
done
The proper fix should be done upstream, by changing, for each
plugin:
libicmpPlugin_la_LDFLAGS = -shared -release @PACKAGE_VERSION@ @DYN_FLAGS@
into
libicmpPlugin_la_LDFLAGS = -module -avoid-version @DYN_FLAGS@
Strangely, -shared doesn't seems to be a libtool option. It
is certainly unneeded.
* there are still bad perms, that should be fixed in %setup:
chmod -x docs/ntop-autotools.pdf *.c *.h plugins/*.c
* --enable-tcpwrap should be replaced by --with-tcpwrap
* you could add to the configue call: --disable-dependency-tracking
* there is still a dependency on logrotate missing
* some doc files are missing: README in source directory, and
in docs: 1STRUN.txt, KNOWN_BUGS, README, FAQ*, BUG_REPORT
some shouldn't be packaged (INSTALL, CONTENTS)
* during the first run with -t 5, I get:
Mon Aug 28 01:31:32 2006 [MSGID0026798] **WARNING** ASN: Unable to open file
'AS-list.txt'
Also ntop cannot be interrupted during that first run: hitting
ctrl-C does nothing while ntop is prompting:
Please enter the password for the admin user:
I can kill ntop from another console but then the first one
is broken
* there is still
lun 28 aoû 2006 01:36:52 CEST [MSGID0757670] **WARNING** Message is
'/usr/lib/ntop/plugins/libxmldumpPlugin.so: undefined symbol:
gdome_doc_documentElement'
Otherwise it seems 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 197198] Review Request: ntop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ntop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197198 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-27 19:12 EST --- OK - Package name OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (GPL) OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. See below - Sources match upstream md5sum: cd29a876b34a7dd76555e9acd8f160bb ntop-3.2.tgz cd29a876b34a7dd76555e9acd8f160bb ntop-3.2.tgz.1 OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. See below - BuildRequires correct OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. See below - No rpmlint output. SHOULD Items: OK - Should include License or ask upstream to include it. - Should build in mock. See below - Should have sane scriptlets. Issues: 1. Oddly the web site ( http://www.ntop.org/ ) doesn't mention the sourceforge src download. It points only to their CVS repository for getting the source. Is the sourceforge download official for upstream? Perhaps just a bug in their download page on the web site? They do mention in the CVS FAQ file: http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/n/nt/ntop/ 2. Doesn't build under mock/devel. The libpcap BuildRequires should be libpcap-devel ? (Note that this changed between fc5 and devel) 3. Why the post and postun calls to ldconfig? If ntop does dlopen directly on the .so files, there should be no need to call ldconfig. Also, if that is the case perhaps the .so files shouldn't be polluting libdir? I removed the non versioned files and ntop starts fine, so I think we can remove: /usr/lib/libntop.so /usr/lib/libmyrrd.so /usr/lib/libntopreport.so 4. rpmlint says: E: ntop non-standard-uid /var/ntop ntop E: ntop non-standard-dir-perm /var/ntop 0775 Those can be ignored. W: ntop devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libntop.so W: ntop devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libmyrrd.so W: ntop devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libntopreport.so I think those can be removed. W: ntop mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs Cosmetic, but would be nice to fix up. E: ntop-debuginfo script-without-shellbang /usr/src/debug/ntop-3.2/fcUtils.c E: ntop-debuginfo script-without-shellbang /usr/src/debug/ntop-3.2/globals- structtypes.h Permissions on those files should be 644? 5. There is currently nothing in the plugins directory. Do you intend to ship no plugins at all? 6. You need to run ntop "manually" the first time to set the password. Would there be some way to detect this in the init script and print a warning and tell the user exactly what they need to run? 7. Starting up after setting the password results in: /sbin/service ntop start Starting ntop daemon:Processing file /etc/ntop.conf for parameters... Sun Aug 27 16:54:45 2006 NOTE: Interface merge enabled by default Sun Aug 27 16:54:45 2006 Initializing gdbm databases NOTE: --use-syslog, no facility specified, using default value. Did you forget the =? [ OK ] Can that be redirected to the log or /dev/null? init scripts shouldn't print verbose information to the starting console. 8. Instead of removing the .a files you could just pass '--disable-static' to configure. Possibly also enable: --enable-snmp ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 204263] Review Request: geda-symbols - Electronic symbols for gEDA
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: geda-symbols - Electronic symbols for gEDA https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204263 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-27 18:11 EST --- *** Bug 177109 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177109] Review Request: geda-symbols - symbol repository for gEDA circuit design software
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: geda-symbols - symbol repository for gEDA circuit design software https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177109 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|WONTFIX |DUPLICATE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-27 18:11 EST --- http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Policy/StalledReviews *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 204263 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 204263] New: Review Request: geda-symbols - Electronic symbols for gEDA
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=204263 Summary: Review Request: geda-symbols - Electronic symbols for gEDA 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://chitlesh.googlepages.com/geda-symbols.spec SRPM URL: http://chitlesh.googlepages.com/geda-symbols-20060123-3.src.rpm Description: This package contains a bunch of symbols of electronic devices used by gschem, the gEDA project schematic editor. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199173] Review Request: clusterssh
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: clusterssh https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199173 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-27 18:03 EST --- Excellent. I just wanted to make sure you didn't miss that it had been approved. :) If you require any assistance at all, feel free to drop me a email or catch me on irc. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 204140] Review Request: libmtp - MTP client library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libmtp - MTP client library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204140 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-27 17:59 EST --- New upstream version: Spec URL: http://www.df.lth.se/~triad/krad/fc/libmtp.spec SRPM URL: http://www.df.lth.se/~triad/krad/fc/libmtp-0.0.15-1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199173] Review Request: clusterssh
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: clusterssh https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199173 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-27 17:49 EST --- I have every intention of sorting it out. Time, however, is a little lacking currently. Duncs -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197198] Review Request: ntop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ntop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197198 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-27 17:46 EST --- Please do. I don't know how much time I have, so I'll do some testing if I have time. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191218] Review Request: PyScript - Postscript graphics with Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: PyScript - Postscript graphics with Python https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191218 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-27 17:40 EST --- Hey Paul. I see only this one submission from you in bugzilla, so it's kinda hard to know if you are ready to be sponsored. Can you take a look at: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/HowToGetSponsored Adding some review comments to other bugs to show you know the guidelines, as well as submitting a few more packages would help a lot. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 197198] Review Request: ntop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ntop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197198 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-27 17:40 EST --- Ralf or Patrice: Do either of you intend to formally review this package? If not, I would be happy to start in on a formal 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 204259] Review Request: geda - Project manager for gEDA
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: geda - Project manager for gEDA https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204259 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-27 17:30 EST --- *** Bug 177414 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177414] Review Request: geda - project manager for gEDA project
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: geda - project manager for gEDA project https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177414 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|WONTFIX |DUPLICATE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-27 17:30 EST --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 204259 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 204259] New: Review Request: geda - Project manager for gEDA
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=204259 Summary: Review Request: geda - Project manager for gEDA 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://chitlesh.googlepages.com/geda.spec SRPM URL: http://chitlesh.googlepages.com/geda-20060123-3.src.rpm Description: Project manager for gEDA. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 203964] Review Request: libburn - Library for reading, mastering and writing optical discs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libburn - Library for reading, mastering and writing optical discs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203964 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-27 17:06 EST --- * Sun Aug 27 2006 Jesse Keating <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - 0.2-3.20060823svn - don't install dupe headers in -devel packages - libisofs requires libburn devel for directory ownership http://people.redhat.com/jkeating/extras/libburn/libburn.spec http://people.redhat.com/jkeating/extras/libburn/libburn-0.2-3.20060823svn.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 204258] New: Review Request: mousepad - A simple text editor for Xfce
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=204258 Summary: Review Request: mousepad - A simple text editor for Xfce 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.scrye.com/~kevin/extras/mousepad/mousepad.spec SRPM URL: http://www.scrye.com/~kevin/extras/mousepad/mousepad-0.2.6-1.fc6.src.rpm Description: Mousepad is a text editor for Xfce based on Leafpad. The initial reason for Mousepad was to provide printing support, which would have been difficult for Leafpad for various reasons. Although some features are under development, currently Mousepad has folowing features: * Complete support for UTF-8 text * Cut/Copy/Paste and Select All text * Search and Replace * Font selecton * Word Wrap * Character coding selection * Auto character coding detection (UTF-8 and some codesets) * Manual codeset setting * Infinite Undo/Redo by word * Auto Indent * Multi-line Indent * Display line numbers * Drag and Drop * Printing NOTE: mousepad is included in the upcoming Xfce 4.4, but it builds fine with the existing Xfce 4.2 in devel/fc5. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202457] Review Request: crack-attack - Puzzle action 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: crack-attack - Puzzle action game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202457 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-27 16:48 EST --- All fixes verified so as far as I'm concerned the package is APPROVED! Of course, feel free to wait a while before import & build for any reasonable objections from fedora-games-list. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 204250] Review Request: Ngspice - A mixed level/signal circuit simulator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Ngspice - A mixed level/signal circuit simulator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204250 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-27 16:12 EST --- The correct URL is SRPM URL: http://chitlesh.googlepages.com/ngspice-17-1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2006-08-27 16:10 EST --- (In reply to comment #37) > Did I miss something? I added the gtk-update-icon-cache as shown on the wiki > to %post and %postun. Did you mean something else? My bad, it looks like the adviced scriptlets have changed. Thus the package is fine as is. Once I sponsor you I'll approve it and you can import it. Please select a second package for me to review and to get an idea of how familiar you are with FE's guidelines (this one went smotth, but had a bit of a head start). (In reply to comment #38) > the gtk cruft is not needed for kde packages > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets?highlight=%28Packaging%29#head-7103f6c38d1b5735e8477bdd569ad73ea2c49bda > > states "For KDE, just 'touch'ing the top-level icon directory is enough." > > there is no need to discusss this it is perfectly acceptable to not have the > gtk > stuff in kde packages. > For kdebase maybe, but for KDE packages which also are show in the gnome applications menu it must still be there. since kdiff3 is shown in the gnome applications menu, the update icon cache is needed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 2006-08-27 16:04 EST --- the gtk cruft is not needed for kde packages http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets?highlight=%28Packaging%29#head-7103f6c38d1b5735e8477bdd569ad73ea2c49bda states "For KDE, just 'touch'ing the top-level icon directory is enough." there is no need to discusss this it is perfectly acceptable to not have the gtk stuff in kde packages. gtk-update-icon-cache is not part of the freedesktop.org specs and really doesn't belong in any spec see bug #170335 for more info -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202457] Review Request: crack-attack - Puzzle action 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: crack-attack - Puzzle action game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202457
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-27 16:00 EST ---
Everybody / anybody I'm cc-ing fedora-games-list as it looks like this package
is going to be reviewed if you have any doubts, really any at all about the
legal status of this package please speak up now, before it gets approved,
imported and build!
(In reply to comment #7)
> 1. The URL: tag appears to point to an old site, as the latest version on
> this
> site is 1.1.10 and the source location is different. I feel http://
> www.nongnu.org/crack-attack/ would be a better choice.
>
Fixed
> 2. No use of %{name}-%{version} macros in Source tag. Personal preference but
> just a heads up if you prefer to use them.
>
Missed those in the old specfile I inhereted, fixed.
> 3. Several files are installed in the %doc directory which probably shouldn't
> be there:
>
> *.sanitize: The patch backup files
> crack-attack.6: An uncompressed copy of the man page, but the man page is
> correctly installed in %{_mandir}/man6/
> crack-attack.xml: Really a 'source' file for generating the man page so I
> wouldn't install it.
> ready_to_release: Useless to the end user IMHO and shouldn't be installed.
>
Woops, fixed, thanks!
> 4. /usr/share/crack-attack/crack-attack.desktop and /usr/share/crack-attack/
> crack-attack.xpm, do these files really need to be there?
The .xpm is needed and I've used the .desktop as the .desktop and installed it
with --delete-original.
New version with all this fixed here:
Spec URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/crack-attack.spec
SRPM URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/crack-attack-1.1.14-8.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 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] 2006-08-27 15:55 EST ---
Did I miss something? I added the gtk-update-icon-cache as shown on the wiki
to %post and %postun. Did you mean something else?
%post
touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || :
%{_bindir}/gtk-update-icon-cache --quiet %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || :
%postun
touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || :
%{_bindir}/gtk-update-icon-cache --quiet %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || :
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 203205] Review Request: eclipse-phpeclipse
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: eclipse-phpeclipse https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203205 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-27 15:38 EST --- (In reply to comment #1) > Is this supposed to build on FC5? No, I don't think the source will even compile against 3.1.2. Sorry I should have been clear about 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 203964] Review Request: libburn - Library for reading, mastering and writing optical discs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libburn - Library for reading, mastering and writing optical discs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203964 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-27 15:20 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) > ... Ah, and your changelog entry refers to cdrtools instead of cdrskin. [...] > Looks like the only thing to fix is the duplication of the libburn header > files. I presume just drop them > from libisofs-devel. Well, not the only thing, I'd fix the ref in the changelog too. :) /me goes off to play video games with son... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 203964] Review Request: libburn - Library for reading, mastering and writing optical discs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libburn - Library for reading, mastering and writing optical discs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203964 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-27 15:18 EST --- (In reply to comment #4) > Sorry for making your life bitter with different cdrskin version number. Doesn't make my life bitter, just makes it a little wonky to package. > Current status is that while cdrskin may make a major (or minor) step in a > period of time valuable enough to increase version number, such thing doesn't > have to be true in the same period for libburn library (and cdrskin depends on > libburn). The most obvious reason for this is that cdrskin is still not using > all of libburn options, and that libburn development is much more complicated > then the one of cdrskin itself, altought even cdrskin development isn't > without > it's problems. I would say that they either really ought to be in separate tarballs, each with their own version number, or the version numbers sync'd up. Two differently versioned components in a single tarball is just plain confusing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 203964] Review Request: libburn - Library for reading, mastering and writing optical discs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: libburn - Library for reading, mastering and writing
optical discs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203964
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-27 15:15 EST ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> So, this isn't actually a pre-release. These peices of software have been
> released in the past, on other websites, which is why this is a svn snapshot
> on
> top of the old release, thus the 1. naming scheme.
Ah, okay. Now that I think about it, I do recall seeing some mention of a 0_2_1
tag in some merge
script in the source, so that makes sense. Works for me.
> Docs added, tabs fixed, version requires fixed, and file perms changed.
Both Makefile and Makefile.am still have unnecessary execute permissions, but
rpmlint doesn't seem to
care, so good enough. Ah, and your changelog entry refers to cdrtools instead
of cdrskin.
> I want
> to only use mainver where its needed, as it should go away soon when the
> release
> numbers sync up. Then I only have to change it a few places.
Works for me, was only an idea, shouldn't have been under the "FIXME's". Really
only needed it in the
Requires: for cdrskin, looks good to me.
On with the formal review...
* 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
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
* license field matches the actual license
* license is open source-compatible (GPL), license text included in package
* source files match upstream:
n/a, svn snapshot
* latest version is being packaged
* BuildRequires are proper
* package builds in mock (rawhide x86_64)
* rpmlint only spits acceptable warnings (W: about lack of docs in some
packages)
* final provides and requires are sane:
cdrskin-0.1.4-2.20060823svn.fc6.x86_64.rpm
cdrskin = 0.1.4-2.20060823svn.fc6
=
libburn = 0.2-2.20060823svn.fc6
libburn-0.2-2.20060823svn.fc6.x86_64.rpm
libburn.so.1()(64bit)
libburn = 0.2-2.20060823svn.fc6
=
/sbin/ldconfig
/sbin/ldconfig
libburn.so.1()(64bit)
libburn-devel-0.2-2.20060823svn.fc6.x86_64.rpm
libburn-devel = 0.2-2.20060823svn.fc6
=
libburn = 0.2-2.20060823svn.fc6
libburn.so.1()(64bit)
pkgconfig
libisofs-0.2-2.20060823svn.fc6.x86_64.rpm
libisofs.so.1()(64bit)
libisofs = 0.2-2.20060823svn.fc6
=
/sbin/ldconfig
/sbin/ldconfig
libisofs.so.1()(64bit)
libisofs-devel-0.2-2.20060823svn.fc6.x86_64.rpm
libisofs-devel = 0.2-2.20060823svn.fc6
=
libisofs = 0.2-2.20060823svn.fc6
libisofs.so.1()(64bit)
pkgconfig
* shared libraries are present, properly named (unversioned symlinks in -devel
packages, versioned libs
in the right places, with appropriate calls to ldconfig in scriptlets)
* package is not relocatable
* owns the directories it creates
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't
* FIXME - no duplicates in %files
libisofs-devel and libburn-devel both install the same include files,
/usr/include/libburn/*
* file permissions are appropriate
* %clean is present
* %check is present and all tests pass:
n/a, there is a 'make check' target, but it doesn't appear to do
anything useful...
* scriptlets present -- proper ldconfig's
* code, not content
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package
* FIXME - headers properly in -devel packages, but currently duplicated
* pkgconfig files in -devel packages, properly Requires: pkgconfig
* no libtool .la droppings
* not a GUI app
* not a web app
Looks like the only thing to fix is the duplication of the libburn header
files. I presume just drop them
from libisofs-devel.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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] 2006-08-27 15:13 EST --- Almost perfect, but you're not using the gtk icon cache scriptlets as provided on the wiki, your current setup will cause errors to scroll on the console (although no further harm) on 100% kde setups (iow no gtk installed). Please use the scriptlets from the wiki where ever possible. If you disagree with a scriptlet discuss this on f-e-l. These scriplets are to be concidered best of breed and should always be used where possible. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 204250] New: Review Request: Ngspice - A mixed level/signal circuit simulator
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=204250 Summary: Review Request: Ngspice - A mixed level/signal circuit simulator 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://chitlesh.googlepages.com/ngspice.spec SRPM URL: http://chitlesh.googlepages.com/ng-spice-17-1.src.rpm Description: Ngspice is a general-purpose circuit simulator program. It implements three classes of analysis: - Nonlinear DC analyses - Nonlinear Transient analyses - Linear AC analyses Ngspice implements the usual circuits elements, like resistors, capacitors, inductors (single or mutual), transmission lines and a growing number of semiconductor devices like diodes, bipolar transistors, mosfets (both bulk and SOI), mesfets, jfet and HFET. Ngspice implements the EKV model but it cannot be distributed with the package since its license does not allow to redistribute EKV source code. Ngspice integrates Xspice, a mixed-mode simulator built upon spice3c1 (and then some tweak is necessary merge it with spice3f5). Xspice provides a codemodel interface and an event-driven simulation algorithm. Users can develop their own models for devices using the codemodel interface. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 203964] Review Request: libburn - Library for reading, mastering and writing optical discs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libburn - Library for reading, mastering and writing optical discs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203964 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-27 14:50 EST --- Hello, Sorry for making your life bitter with different cdrskin version number. Current status is that while cdrskin may make a major (or minor) step in a period of time valuable enough to increase version number, such thing doesn't have to be true in the same period for libburn library (and cdrskin depends on libburn). The most obvious reason for this is that cdrskin is still not using all of libburn options, and that libburn development is much more complicated then the one of cdrskin itself, altought even cdrskin development isn't without it's problems. Kind regards, Mario -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199173] Review Request: clusterssh
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: clusterssh https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199173 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-27 14:46 EST --- Ping Duncan. Do you still intend to import and maintain this package? It should be all approved and ready to 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 202356] Review Request: terminus-font - Clean fixed width font
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: terminus-font - Clean fixed width font
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202356
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-27 14:37 EST ---
OK - Package name
OK - Spec file matches base package name.
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
OK - License (GPL)
OK - License field in spec matches
See below - License file included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
OK - Sources match upstream md5sum:
fe9d8e25b9537f6b3154d07d3da50375 terminus-font-4.20.tar.gz
fe9d8e25b9537f6b3154d07d3da50375 terminus-font-4.20.tar.gz.1
OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
n/a - Package needs ExcludeArch
OK - BuildRequires correct
n/a - Spec handles locales/find_lang
n/a - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
n/a - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be.
OK - Package owns all the directories it creates.
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
OK - Spec has consistant macro usage.
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
n/a - -doc subpackage needed/used.
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
n/a - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
n/a - .pc files in -devel subpackage.
n/a - .so files in -devel subpackage.
n/a - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
n/a - .la files are removed.
n/a - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file
OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
See below - No rpmlint output.
SHOULD Items:
See below - Should include License or ask upstream to include it.
OK - Should build in mock.
See below - Should have sane scriptlets.
Issues:
1. Should ping upstream to include a copy of the GPL COPYING file.
2. The Group doesn't seem right here. Other font packages use:
User Interface/X
(Granted that rpm groups aren't very usefull, but we should try and
be consistant at least).
3. perl and gawk are in the default BuildRequires, no need to list them.
4. rpmlint says:
W: terminus-font-x11 dangerous-command-in-%preun rm
Why remove those files?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190007] Review Request: php-pecl-zip
Please 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-pecl-zip Alias: php-pecl-zip https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190007] Review Request: php-pecl-zip
Please 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-pecl-zip Alias: php-pecl-zip https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190007 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-27 13:55 EST --- Version 1.7.2 push to CVS and build for devel. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202356] Review Request: terminus-font - Clean fixed width font
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: terminus-font - Clean fixed width font https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202356 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-27 12:43 EST --- Hey Hans. I will take a crack at reviewing this package and possibly sponsoring you. I should get a full review out on it hopefully later today. In the mean time, you may want to take a look at: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/HowToGetSponsored and perhaps add some comments to other pending reviews. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 203964] Review Request: libburn - Library for reading, mastering and writing optical discs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libburn - Library for reading, mastering and writing optical discs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203964 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-27 11:02 EST --- So, this isn't actually a pre-release. These peices of software have been released in the past, on other websites, which is why this is a svn snapshot on top of the old release, thus the 1. naming scheme. Docs added, tabs fixed, version requires fixed, and file perms changed. I want to only use mainver where its needed, as it should go away soon when the release numbers sync up. Then I only have to change it a few places. http://people.redhat.com/jkeating/extras/libburn/libburn.spec http://people.redhat.com/jkeating/extras/libburn/libburn-0.2-2.20060823svn.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 202457] Review Request: crack-attack - Puzzle action 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: crack-attack - Puzzle action game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202457
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-27 10:40 EST ---
* rpmlint: no problems
* Package named correctly: Yes
* Patches named correctly: Yes
* Spec file named correctly: Yes
* Licence field matches: Yes
* Licence file installed: Yes (and included upstream)
* Spec file in American English: Yes
* Source matches upstream: Yes
* Locales use %find_lang: N/A
* Contains %clean: Yes
* Specfile legible: Yes
* Compiles and builds ok: Yes (mock: fc5/ppc)
* Calls ldconfig in %post/%postun for shlibs: N/A
* Owns directories it creates: Yes
* Duplicate files: No
* Permissions set correctly: Yes
* Consistent macro use: Yes (but see suggestion)
* %doc affects runtime: No
* Headers and static libs in -devel: N/A
* .pc files in -devel: N/A
* .so in -devel: N/A
* -devel requires base: N/A
* Contains .la files: No
* Owns files it didn't create: No
* .desktop files installed correctly: Yes
1. The URL: tag appears to point to an old site, as the latest version on this
site is 1.1.10 and the source location is different. I feel http://
www.nongnu.org/crack-attack/ would be a better choice.
2. No use of %{name}-%{version} macros in Source tag. Personal preference but
just a heads up if you prefer to use them.
3. Several files are installed in the %doc directory which probably shouldn't
be there:
*.sanitize: The patch backup files
crack-attack.6: An uncompressed copy of the man page, but the man page is
correctly installed in %{_mandir}/man6/
crack-attack.xml: Really a 'source' file for generating the man page so I
wouldn't install it.
ready_to_release: Useless to the end user IMHO and shouldn't be installed.
4. /usr/share/crack-attack/crack-attack.desktop and /usr/share/crack-attack/
crack-attack.xpm, do these files really need to be there?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202457] Review Request: crack-attack - Puzzle action 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: crack-attack - Puzzle action game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202457 [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 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] 2006-08-27 09:20 EST --- I believe all of the above are fixed. Please try: http://nbecker.dyndns.org:8080/RPM/kdiff3-0.9.90-6.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 190343] Review Request: VDR - Video Disk Recorder
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: VDR - Video Disk Recorder https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190343 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-27 09:10 EST --- http://cachalot.mine.nu/5/SRPMS/vdr-1.4.2-1.src.rpm * Sun Aug 27 2006 Ville Skyttä - 1.4.2-1 - 1.4.2, syscall and maintenance patches applied upstream. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192049] Review Request: gnash - GNU Flash player
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gnash - GNU Flash player https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192049 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-27 07:45 EST --- I don't have FC5 to test on. I'll try to have a look from time to time, to see if mesa is updated to mesa-libGL-6.5.* and otherwise wait for user asking a branch. This is built now in devel, Jens you can close the bug. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 204125] Review Request: tremulous-data - Data files for tremulous the FPS 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: tremulous-data - Data files for tremulous the FPS game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204125 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-27 07:15 EST --- Since Randy (the author of the shaderlab textures) has dropped of the radar again and I read in some Debian mails that Randy had given upstream permission to relicense his stuff under the CC license, I've mailed upstream. Here is their response: --- On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 10:36:40 +0200 Hans wrote: > > First a short intro, I'm a Linux enthousiast and developer. Lately I'm > > mainly spending my time packaging good games for the Fedora > > distribution. I've recently packaged tremulous for inclusion into > > Fedora. However the license on the shaderlab textures is stopping us > > from shipping tremulous at the moment (because it doesn't match our > > licensing guidelines). I've heard from left and right that Randy has > > released these Textures under the same CC license as the rest of the > > tremulous content and that he has send you an official statement that > > those textures may be shipped with tremulous under this CC license. > > Can you confirm this, or even better forward Randy's message to me? "This is for all the textures & other assets that Tremulous uses. I hereby place all copies of my work in Tremulous 1.1.0 (either in whole or in part) under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike licence version 2.5. Users are also hereby licenced to apply any newer version of the Creative Commons ShareAlike licence as they wish. Cheers, Randy Reddig" --- So that clears the licensing issue with tremulous and now we're good to go to release it. Can someone please review 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 204228] Review Request: sleuthkit - Open Source forensic toolkit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sleuthkit - Open Source forensic toolkit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204228 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-27 07:04 EST --- NTFS support in sleuthkit may not be allowed, see: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ForbiddenItems#head-e52c1870d4467fe40c9da546fe3328e4a2430834 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/65749 As well you should look at: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Contributors You seem not to be sponsored, so you need to block FE-NEEDSPONSOR. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 204112] Review Request: ochusha - A GTK+ 2ch.net BBS Browser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ochusha - A GTK+ 2ch.net BBS Browser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204112 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-27 06:42 EST --- Well: * build for devel succeeded. http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/build-status/job.psp?uid=14640 * SyncNeeded is requested for FE-5. Now I close this bug as CLOSED NEXTRELEASE. Thank 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 192049] Review Request: gnash - GNU Flash player
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gnash - GNU Flash player https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192049 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 204112] Review Request: ochusha - A GTK+ 2ch.net BBS Browser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ochusha - A GTK+ 2ch.net BBS Browser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204112 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-27 06:20 EST --- Thank you for very quick review!! Now I try to import to buildsys. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 204112] Review Request: ochusha - A GTK+ 2ch.net BBS Browser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ochusha - A GTK+ 2ch.net BBS Browser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204112 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-27 06:10 EST --- This package ochusha-0.5.8.2-3 has been approuved -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200499] Review Request:
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200499 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-27 06:09 EST --- the reason why it isnt in the mainline kernel included yet is that the code is still beta and in heavy development. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 200498] Review Request: btsco-kmod
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: btsco-kmod https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200498 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-27 06:08 EST --- the reason why it isnt in the mainline kernel included yet is that the code is still beta and in heavy development. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189093] Review Request: mono-debugger
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mono-debugger https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189093 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-27 06:06 EST --- Spec URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/mono-debugger.spec SRPM URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/mono-debugger-0.30-3.src.rpm Fixes correctly for 64 bit Additional BRs (autoconf and automake) Moved README.build to the -devel package Fixed ownership problem on a directory -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 204228] New: Review Request: sleuthkit - Open Source forensic toolkit
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=204228 Summary: Review Request: sleuthkit - Open Source forensic toolkit 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://rindt.name/fileadmin/download/fedora/SPECS/sleuthkit.spec SRPM URL: http://rindt.name/fileadmin/download/fedora/SRPMS/sleuthkit-2.05-1.src.rpm Description: The Sleuth Kit is a collection of UNIX-based command line file system forensic tools that allow an investigator to examine NTFS, FAT, FFS, EXT2FS, and EXT3FS file systems of a suspect computer in a non-intrusive fashion. The tools have a layer-based design and can extract data from internal file system structures. Because the tools do not rely on the operating system to process the file systems, deleted and hidden content is shown. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 203774] Review Request: xcircuit - Electronic circuit schematic drawing 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: xcircuit - Electronic circuit schematic drawing program https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203774 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-27 06:03 EST --- Hehehe thanks :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 204227] New: Review Request: foremost - Console program to recover files based on their headers
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=204227 Summary: Review Request: foremost - Console program to recover files based on their headers 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://rindt.name/fileadmin/download/fedora/SPECS/foremost.spec SRPM URL: http://rindt.name/fileadmin/download/fedora/SRPMS/foremost-1.2-1.src.rpm Description: Foremost is a console program to recover files based on their headers, footers, and internal data structures. This process is commonly referred to as data carving. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192049] Review Request: gnash - GNU Flash player
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gnash - GNU Flash player https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192049 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-27 04:53 EST --- (In reply to comment #46) > Another thing, I don't think there shouldn't be a branch for > FC-5, given that gnash seems to trigger a mesa bug a bit too often Perhaps an FC-5 branch can be made if and when such a bug is resolved for fc5. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192049] Review Request: gnash - GNU Flash player
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gnash - GNU Flash player https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192049 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-27 04:48 EST --- and added entry in owners.list too. I think this can be moved to FE-ACCEPT now, thanks. Patrice, please feel free to go ahead and build this. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192049] Review Request: gnash - GNU Flash player
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gnash - GNU Flash player https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192049 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-27 04:39 EST --- I imported gnash-0.7.1-7 into cvs. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-27 04:21 EST ---
As promised a formal review, one the must fixes are fixed we can do tihs for one
or two of your other packages, once I'm convinced that you've got the hang of
things I'll sponsor you.
MUST:
=
O rpmlint output is:
W: kdiff3 mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs
W: kdiff3 incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.9.88-5 0.9.90-5
W: kdiff3 dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/doc/HTML/de/kdiff3/common
../common
W: kdiff3 dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/doc/HTML/fr/kdiff3/common
../common
W: kdiff3 dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/doc/HTML/nl/kdiff3/common
../common
W: kdiff3 dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/kdiff3/common
../common
W: kdiff3 dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/doc/HTML/pt/kdiff3/common
../common
W: kdiff3 dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/doc/HTML/it/kdiff3/common
../common
W: kdiff3 dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/doc/HTML/da/kdiff3/common
../common
W: kdiff3 dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/doc/HTML/es/kdiff3/common
../common
W: kdiff3 dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/doc/HTML/sv/kdiff3/common
../common
W: kdiff3 dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/doc/HTML/et/kdiff3/common
../common
* Package and spec file named appropriately
* Packaged according to packaging guidelines
* License ok (but license file not included!)
* spec file is legible and in Am. English.
* Source matches upstream
* Compiles and builds on devel x86_64
* BR: ok
* Locales handled as required
* No shared libraries
* Not relocatable
* Package owns / or requires all dirs
* No duplicate files & Permissions ok
* %clean & macro usage OK
* Contains code only
* %doc does not affect runtime, and isn't large enough to warrent a sub package
* no -devel package needed, no libs / .la files(except for the plugin).
* .desktop file as required, but not properly installed, see below
MUST Fix
* The following rpmlint output:
W: kdiff3 mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs
W: kdiff3 incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.9.88-5 0.9.90-5
* The desktop-file-install command is missing "--add-category X-Fedora" from
its argument list
* The %post / %postun scriptlets are not updating the gtk-icon-cache, causing
the icon to not appear in the gnome-panel menu, please use the full scriptlets
for this as given here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets?action=show&redirect=ScriptletSnippets#head-7103f6c38d1b5735e8477bdd569ad73ea2c49bda
* Remove this (already commented) bogus line from %files: "#%{_datadir}/locale"
* Replace the empty %doc with:
%doc AUTHORS COPYING ChangeLog README TODO
and move the line to directly below the %defattr line. Also remove the
empty line between %{_datadir}/services/* and %{_mandir}/man1/kdiff3*
a manfile is treated as a normal file.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
