[Bug 193224] Review Request: streamer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: streamer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193224 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 02:03 EST --- yes i discussed that on #fedora-extras with kevin. I thought the new procedure is followed to all older review request bugs also and i only check current state of bug before sending any comments. So thought maybe while creating this bug it got assigned to thl but blocker bug clearly indicated that its not under FE-REVIEW. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192583] Review Request: php-pear-XML-Parser - XML parsing class based on PHP's bundled expat
Please 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-XML-Parser - XML parsing class based on PHP's bundled expat Alias: php-pear-XML-Parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192583 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 04:10 EST --- Spec: http://remi.collet.free.fr/rpms/extras/php-pear-XML-Parser.spec SRPM: http://remi.collet.free.fr/rpms/extras/php-pear-XML-Parser-1.2.7-2.fc5.src.rpm Mock: http://remi.collet.free.fr/rpms/extras/php-pear-XML-Parser-build.log Changes: - use new macros from /etc/rpm/macros.pear - own /usr/share/pear/XML - require php = 4.2.0 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196847] Review Request: php-pear-PHPUnit2 - PEAR: Regression testing framework for unit tests
Please 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-PHPUnit2 - PEAR: Regression testing framework for unit tests Alias: php-pear-PHPUnit2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196847 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 04:22 EST --- Daniel, Build failed because you didn't use the latest php-pear (1.4.9-1.2 on fc5) with /etc/rpm/macros.pear. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 204495] Review Request: perl-GStreamer - GStreamer Perl module
Please 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-GStreamer - GStreamer Perl module https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204495 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 04:46 EST --- Ok, I'm going to chalk this one up to devel being in a state of perpetual rebuilding. If errors persist into fc6t3, let's open bugs and I'll drive them to where they 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 193867] Review Request: klamav - Clam Anti-Virus on the KDE Desktop
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: klamav - Clam Anti-Virus on the KDE Desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193867
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 06:16 EST ---
The Update Process died unexpectedly! Did you kill it manually? bug and
solution
chitlesh(~)[0]$pkgs=`rpm -qa | grep clam`; echo $pkgs; rpm -V $pkgs
clamav-data-0.88.4-1.fc5 clamav-lib-0.88.4-1.fc5 clamav-0.88.4-1.fc5
clamav-devel-0.88.4-1.fc5
chitlesh(~)[0]$klamav
/bin/bash: freshclam: command not found
QLayout unnamed added to Klamav KlamAV , which already has a layout
/bin/bash: freshclam: command not found
I was missing clamav-update
Add clamav-update as Requires.
* rpmlint issues
chitlesh(~)[0]$rpmlint /home/chitlesh/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/klamav-0.38-1.i386.rpm
W: klamav dangling-symlink /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/klamav02/common
/usr/share/doc/HTML/en/common
W: klamav symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/klamav02/common
/usr/share/doc/HTML/en/common
W: klamav non-executable-in-bin /usr/bin/ScanWithKlamAV 0644
E: klamav non-executable-script /usr/bin/ScanWithKlamAV 0644
chitlesh(~)[0]$rpmlint
/home/chitlesh/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/klamav-debuginfo-0.38-1.i386.rpm
E: klamav-debuginfo script-without-shellbang
/usr/src/debug/klamav-0.38/src/klammail/client.c
E: klamav-debuginfo script-without-shellbang
/usr/src/debug/klamav-0.38/src/klammail/options.c
E: klamav-debuginfo script-without-shellbang
/usr/src/debug/klamav-0.38/src/klammail/options.h
E: klamav-debuginfo script-without-shellbang
/usr/src/debug/klamav-0.38/src/klammail/clamdmail.c
E: klamav-debuginfo script-without-shellbang
/usr/src/debug/klamav-0.38/src/klammail/treewalk.c
chitlesh(~)[0]$rpmlint /home/chitlesh/rpmbuild/SRPMS/klamav-0.38-1.src.rpm
chitlesh(~)[0]$
You should check rpmlint on all your *.rpm
Using %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS
- Mixed use is found. Please unify the usage.
You could use
%{__rm} -rf %{buildroot}
instead of
%{__rm} -rf ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}
Correct and update the spec file and srpm, i'll check them again
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 204166] Review Request: xeuphoric - an X based Oric emulator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xeuphoric - an X based Oric emulator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204166 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 06:17 EST --- I've looked further into this and according to companies house in the UK, every company who had any rights to the ROMS have vanished with no successor in name or title. Of course, if it's a big problem, I'll package the ROMS in the same way as I did for fuse-emulator to keep things clean. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195645] Review Request: rasqal - RDF query 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: rasqal - RDF query library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195645 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 06:27 EST --- Jason, obviously there is disagreement over this. So as I've stated before, unless you insist or do not want to review/approve this package over this issue, I want to keep it as it is. I am however far too jaded when it comes to Fedora to not consider the pragmatic approach given how bad chances are in general to get a package through :) But I do need your official insistance if there is such. Thanks Thomas -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 204598] Review Request: geda-gschem - Electronics schematics editor
Please 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-gschem - Electronics schematics editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204598
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 08:07 EST ---
Second review for geda-gschem.
1. From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines :
* Encoding
- iconv -f EUCJP -t UTF8 AUTHORS.tmp AUTHORS \
Well... not EUCJP but ISO-8859-1 at this case.
* Desktop files
- Well: fedora-gschem.desktop has the entry:
Icon=geda
However, no icons are included in this package. Also,
geda.png is included in geda rpm. If you want to use this
png file, this bug must be blocked by bug 204259 and
Requires: geda is needed.
Perhaps you don't want this. So
+ Copy some png (or xpm) file and include it in this package.
( or you can use xpm file included in this package ).
+ Install the image file into /usr/share/icons/hicolor/..
as gschem.{png,xpm} (or use link)
+ Call gtk-update-icon-cache on %post and %postun.
= File and Directory Ownership is now solved.
2. From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines :
= Nothing.
3. Other things I have noticed:
= Nothing.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 204605] Review Request: geda-gsymcheck - Symbol checker for electronics schematics editor
Please 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-gsymcheck - Symbol checker for electronics schematics editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204605 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 08:19 EST --- Well, * iconv -f EUCJP -t UTF8 AUTHORS.tmp AUTHORS \ Not EUCJP , this case is iconv -f ISO-8859-1 -t UTF8 . Fix it, which is the only things to be fixed. This package is APPROVED 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 204598] Review Request: geda-gschem - Electronics schematics editor
Please 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-gschem - Electronics schematics editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204598 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 08:28 EST --- Updated: Spec URL: http://chitlesh.googlepages.com/geda-gschem.spec SRPM URL: http://chitlesh.googlepages.com/geda-gschem-20060123-5.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 204601] Review Request: geda-examples - Circuit examples 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-examples - Circuit examples for gEDA https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204601 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 08:28 EST --- (In reply to comment #3) (In reply to comment #2) - Well, this package may be unuseful without geda-gschem, however, does this package really require geda-gschem? The files provided by this package can be read via schematic editor. That is why it requires geda-gschem Okay. Updated: Spec URL: http://chitlesh.funpic.de/rpm/geda-examples.spec SRPM URL: http://chitlesh.funpic.de/rpm/geda-examples-20060123-4.src.rpm Well, it seems okay, however, this bug is blocked by bug 204598 (geda-gschem) and currently I cannot change the status of this bug. if the status bug 204598 changed, I can re-review (perhaps final check) this later. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 204598] Review Request: geda-gschem - Electronics schematics editor
Please 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-gschem - Electronics schematics editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204598
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 09:17 EST ---
Well:
* As for Source2:
Please specify the URL from which this png file can be gained, and
if you did some action (like image type conversion) to create this
png file, explain it briefly.
* install -m 644 examples/*.sch %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/gEDA/examples
install -m 644 examples/README.* %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/gEDA/examples
install -m 644 scheme/*.scm %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/gEDA/scheme
Use install -p
Well, I want to recheck this once more. Please upload the new spec
and srpm and I will check them (perhaps it is a final check).
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 204417] Review Request: telepathy-gabble - A Jabber/XMPP connection 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: telepathy-gabble - A Jabber/XMPP connection manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204417 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 10:17 EST --- Other packages can have this as well, but what package do you think should own this if not telepathy-gabble? BTW, if your approve still stands could you do the rest of the reviewer steps necessary according to the wiki? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines#head-e1a114b23499786e13113ebf072d03a8f8d02094 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
Resolution||NEXTRELEASE
OtherBugsDependingO|163779 |
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 10:23 EST ---
I've had to add excludearch-ppc to get it to build on the buildsys due to
missing definitions in the ppc %{_includedir}/sys/user.h file
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||179260 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 205023] New: Review Request: filelight-1.0 - cool diskspace use browser for kde
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=205023 Summary: Review Request: filelight-1.0 - cool diskspace use browser for kde 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://nbecker.dyndns.org:8080/RPM/filelight.spec SRPM URL: http://nbecker.dyndns.org:8080/RPM/filelight-1.0-1.src.rpm Description: Filelight graphically represents a file system as a set of concentric segmented-rings, indicating where diskspace is being used. Segments expanding from the center represent files (including directories), with each segment's size being proportional to the file's size and directories having child segments. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195645] Review Request: rasqal - RDF query 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: rasqal - RDF query library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195645
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 11:55 EST ---
Actually there's not much in the way of disagreement. The guidelines currently
state:
Fedora's RPM includes a %makeinstall macro but it must NOT be used when make
install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} will work.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-fcaf3e6fcbd51194a5d0dbcfbdd2fcb7791dd002
Note must. This was voted on by the packaging committee and ratified by FESCo
and the Fedora Board.
Now, I'm not currently reviewing this, so anybody else is free to take it and
perhaps you will find a reviewer who is willing to ignore the guidelines here.
I don't, however, think anyone is really going to want to deal with the fallout
which would almost certainly occur from that. I'm not going to insist that you
make any changes to your package, but personally I think there's not much chance
it being accepted into Extras otherwise.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205023] Review Request: filelight-1.0 - cool diskspace use browser for kde
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: filelight-1.0 - cool diskspace use browser for kde https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205023 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 11:58 EST --- You might want to review the Packaging Guidelines for FE. Just a quick look at your spec, and I can see some things that obviously need to be fixed before this can be approved. For example, the desktop file is handled incorrectly, and your using the Vendor Packager tags. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195645] Review Request: rasqal - RDF query 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: rasqal - RDF query library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195645 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 12:15 EST --- If you ignore the guidelines then what is the point of having them. Hell, let's have a free for all where we can do what we please, shove what we want where we want and to hell if we end up with a distro as screwed up as XP. If a package doesn't follow the guidelines, it doesn't get in. Simple as that. There is a *very* rare case where a package can break the guidelines, but it's so rare that I've only come across it once and even then the breakage delayed getting the package in by weeks as FESCo discussed it. Not even the RedHat engineers can break the packaging guidelines, so it's not as if it's one rule for one and another for another. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193889] Review Request: ht2html - The www.python.org Web site generator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ht2html - The www.python.org Web site generator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193889 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]) | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 12:23 EST --- My appologies for the very long delay, I was away and couldn't attend to these packages. They have now been built. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193898] Review Request: Jython - Java source interpreter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Jython - Java source interpreter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193898 Bug 193898 depends on bug 193889, which changed state. Bug 193889 Summary: Review Request: ht2html - The www.python.org Web site generator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193889 What|Old Value |New Value Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO_REPORTER Status|NEEDINFO_REPORTER |NEEDINFO Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|NEEDINFO|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205029] New: Review Request: autobuild-applet - a GNOME applet for monitoring Test-AutoBuild build status
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=205029 Summary: Review Request: autobuild-applet - a GNOME applet for monitoring Test-AutoBuild build status 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://berrange.com/~dan/fedora-review/autobuild-applet/autobuild-applet.spec SRPM URL: http://berrange.com/~dan/fedora-review/autobuild-applet/autobuild-applet-1.0.3-1.src.rpm Description: AutoBuild Applet provides a GNOME panel applet for monitoring the status of Test-AutoBuild automated build engines via their RSS feed. It can monitor one or more build engines, and provides a small icon in the panel showing whether latest build suceeded or failed. It also provides a summary window showing fine grained per-module build status. Test-AutoBuild itself is not yet submitted to Fedora Extras, but will be in the near future. The applet itself, however, has no build or runtime dependancies on Test-AutoBuild since it interacts via the remote RSS feed. The applet is primarily Python / PyGTK, however, it has a small python C module to access libegg panel APIs. This is my first contribution to Fedora Extras, hence I require someone to sponser this submission. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 177211] Review Request: newsx - NNTP news exchange utility
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: newsx - NNTP news exchange utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177211 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 12:28 EST --- Builds fine in both fc6 and fc5 mock here. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205029] Review Request: autobuild-applet - a GNOME applet for monitoring Test-AutoBuild build status
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: autobuild-applet - a GNOME applet for monitoring Test-AutoBuild build status https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205029 [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 182173] Review Request: eterm - a color vt102 terminal emulator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: eterm - a color vt102 terminal emulator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=182173 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |NEW Keywords||Reopened Resolution|WONTFIX | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 12:42 EST --- New package based on 0.9.4 with o rpath problem fixed o LICENSE taken from upstream package SPEC: http://web.phys.ntnu.no/~terjeros/eterm/eterm.spec SRPM: http://web.phys.ntnu.no/~terjeros/eterm/eterm-0.9.4-1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205030] New: Review Request: atomix - Little mind game where you have to build molecules out of atoms lying around
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=205030 Summary: Review Request: atomix - Little mind game where you have to build molecules out of atoms lying around 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.leemhuis.info/files/fedorarpms/SPECS.fdr/atomix.spec SRPM URL: http://www.leemhuis.info/files/fedorarpms/SRPMS.fdr/atomix-2.14.0-1.src.rpm Description: Atomix is yet another little mind game. You have to build molecules out of single atoms laying around. Of course there is a time limit and the handling is not as easy as you might expect ;-). This game is inspiried by the orignal Amiga game Atomix and uses the GNOME librarys. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195871] Review Request: obmenu
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: obmenu https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195871 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 12:47 EST --- That all sounds good. All the blockers I was seeing appear to be fixed, so this package is APPROVED. Don't forget to close this package with NEXTRELEASE when it's been imported and built. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 204417] Review Request: telepathy-gabble - A Jabber/XMPP connection 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: telepathy-gabble - A Jabber/XMPP connection manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204417 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 12:49 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) Other packages can have this as well, but what package do you think should own this if not telepathy-gabble? Yes, that is the hard part. I don't know, but if somebody wants only to chat over msn netwrok he would just have to install telepathy-msn and not telepathy-gabble, so telepathy-msn should own the dirs in that case. But if i understand things correctly multiple packages owning the same dir is not good. If it is ok then I have no problems, but if it is indeed bad then we have to find a solution. One thing I can think of is having a telepathy-managers package which would be required by all tp connection managers and owns those dirs, but I don't know how such a package is viewed upon, and if there are better solutions. BTW, if your approve still stands could you do the rest of the reviewer steps necessary according to the wiki? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines#head-e1a114b23499786e13113ebf072d03a8f8d02094 Yes I want that but this is the first package I am formally reviewing and i am waiting until my fedorabugs membership is approved -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 182175] Review Request: libast - handy routines and drop-in substitutes for some good-but-non-portable functions (needed by eterm)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libast - handy routines and drop-in substitutes for some good-but-non-portable functions (needed by eterm) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=182175 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 12:50 EST --- (In reply to comment #15) For what it's worth, there's now a LICENSE file in LibAST. URL? $ wget http://www.eterm.org/download/libast-0.7.tar.gz $ tar tzvf libast-0.7.tar.gz | grep -ic LIC 0 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 13:00 EST --- * The Packager Vendor tags should not be included, nor refer to the Dag Wieers repository. Please remove them. * The %setup macro is better invoked with the -q arg since there is no need to pollute build output with a list of files being extracted from the tar.gz * The build process in the package is not honouring the $RPM_OPTS_FLAGS compiler settings. For example - its compiling with -O -g : gcc -DLINUX2 -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -D_LARGEFILE64_SOURCE -DVER=\2.05\ -I../auxtools -I../imgtools -O -Wall -g -c -o jcat.o jcat.c While current Fedora build flags are: -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 It would be very desirable to have the build process honour these options since they enable various security protection measures. A cursory look at the source code suggests it would probably need a patch applied to the Makefiles since they are hand-written instead of using AutoTools. IMHO, such a patch would be worthwhile, unless there are specific problems compiling the tools with these flags. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205030] Review Request: atomix - Little mind game where you have to build molecules out of atoms lying around
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: atomix - Little mind game where you have to build molecules out of atoms lying around https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205030 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193894] Review Request: ant-contrib - A collection of tasks for Ant
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ant-contrib - A collection of tasks for Ant https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193894 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 13:53 EST --- After a long delay I was planning to build this package but ran into another problem, maybe someone here will be able to figure out what's going on. Here is the new src.rpm: http://people.redhat.com/ifoox/extras/ant-contrib-1.0-0.3.b2.src.rpm When I run rpmlint on the resulting binary I get the following warning: W: ant-contrib unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/gcj/ant-contrib/ant-contrib-1.0.jar.so I'm not really sure why rpmbuild is not stripping this object as always, and also doesn't produce a -debuginfo pacakge. Any suggestions? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202006] Review Request: fmio - FM radio card manipulation utility
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: fmio - FM radio card manipulation utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202006
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 13:54 EST ---
OK - Package name
OK - Spec file matches base package name.
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
OK - License (BSD)
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:
3eb91258db51e7ab78e2d4a8c2c31037 fmio-2.0.8.tar.gz
3eb91258db51e7ab78e2d4a8c2c31037 fmio-2.0.8.tar.gz.1
fe74b5965f6a27b1d91d481705a926d0 fmio-gq-wrapper.py
fe74b5965f6a27b1d91d481705a926d0 fmio-gq-wrapper.py.1
OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
OK - BuildRequires correct
OK - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
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 - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
See below - .so files in -devel subpackage.
OK - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
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.
Issues:
1. Might see if the upstream could include a copy of the license
with the package (although development seems pretty stalled).
Any chance of upstream taking any of your patches and doing a new
release?
2. You use %makeinstall, can you change to
make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}
See:
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-
fcaf3e6fcbd51194a5d0dbcfbdd2fcb7791dd002
3. rpmlint says:
W: fmio unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/libradio.so
Permissions are wrong on that file. It's 644, but should be
755?
W: fmio no-soname /usr/lib/libradio.so
This would be good to fix, but might be a pretty big patch.
W: fmio strange-permission fmio-gq-wrapper.py 0755
This can probibly be ignored.
W: fmio mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs
This would be good to fix. Use either spaces or tabs in the spec.
W: fmio-devel no-documentation
Can be ignored.
W: fmio-wmfmio non-conffile-in-etc /etc/wmfmiorc
Should mark that file as %config ?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195871] Review Request: obmenu
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: obmenu https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195871 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 14:01 EST --- Built for devel; branch requested for FC-5. Thanks for the review! (As an aside, I've received a reply from the upstream author that the next release will feature code attempting to automagically create the user's configuration directory and copy the default menu.xml to it if it does not yet exist. Yay!) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205030] Review Request: atomix - Little mind game where you have to build molecules out of atoms lying around
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: atomix - Little mind game where you have to build molecules out of atoms lying around https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205030 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 13:50 EST --- The game is setgid games, but doesn't appear to completely drop setgid privileges after starting up, according to /proc/pid/status. In fact, there are two processes created when atomix runs, one without setgid privileges, and one with. This seems to use gnome functions to handle the scoreboard file, so I'd be curious to learn how gnome deals with security for setgid + scoreboard 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 193894] Review Request: ant-contrib - A collection of tasks for Ant
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ant-contrib - A collection of tasks for Ant https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193894 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 14:02 EST --- Check the permissions on that file. They must be 755 on a dynamic lib for rpm to properly strip/create debuginfo. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205031] New: Review Request: python-telepathy - Python libraries for Telepathy
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=205031 Summary: Review Request: python-telepathy - Python libraries for Telepathy 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://piedmont.homelinux.org/fedora/telepathy/python-telepathy.spec SRPM URL: http://piedmont.homelinux.org/fedora/telepathy/python-telepathy-0.13.2-1.src.rpm Description: Python libraries for use in Telepathy clients and connection managers. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205030] Review Request: atomix - Little mind game where you have to build molecules out of atoms lying around
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: atomix - Little mind game where you have to build molecules out of atoms lying around https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205030 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 14:14 EST --- You're missing find-langs from the spec file - there are a lot of translation files in there. rpmlint throws up two errors for the rpm package zero-length /var/lib/games/atomix.scores non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/atomix 02755 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196120] Review Request: gresistor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gresistor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196120 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 14:15 EST --- Well, functionally good. I will 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 196120] Review Request: gresistor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gresistor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196120 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201149] Review Request: Cherokee Flexible WebServer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Cherokee Flexible WebServer Alias: Cherokee https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201149 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 14:35 EST --- Which is the most recent spec and/or srpm? As a reviewer I much prefer a full spec or srpm to download either an updated attachment or external URL. Your comment has make CFLAGS=-O0 -g3 commented out but the attached srpm does not. If at all possible I don't want to have to apply spec patches before reviewing. Why do you redefine Docdir? If it is a legacy from the existing spec you should be able to remove it. Please make Source0 point to a URL where the tarball can be downloaded. Build fails in %prep at the gzip line: gzip: %SOURCE.gz: No such file or directory %setup macro makes the gzip line after it redundant anyway, the setup macro should decompress sources. (At least it does when your source has the Source0 tag.) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. 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 201149] Review Request: Cherokee Flexible WebServer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Cherokee Flexible WebServer Alias: Cherokee https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201149 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 14:57 EST --- (In reply to comment #11) Which is the most recent spec and/or srpm? As a reviewer I much prefer a full spec or srpm to download either an updated attachment or external URL. The latest spec file is here: http://manuel.todo-linux.com/cherokee/spec/cherokee.spec And SRPM is also at: http://manuel.todo-linux.com/cherokee/srpm/cherokee-0.5.4-22.1.src.rpm Your comment has make CFLAGS=-O0 -g3 commented out but the attached srpm does not. You're right. After some talkings with other cherokee developers, we would like to use CFLAGS, because we think that it's a good idea to compile Cherokee with debug info. So I have delete the comment therefore, make CFLAGS is alive again. If at all possible I don't want to have to apply spec patches before reviewing. Roger. Why do you redefine Docdir? If it is a legacy from the existing spec you should be able to remove it. Ok I'm going to remove it. Please make Source0 point to a URL where the tarball can be downloaded. Done Thank you very much John. I tought that this ticket would die because of that, I've been working with this spec and no new versions have been uploaded to my server. Hope we can work hard to be successful with 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. 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 205032] New: Review Request: perl-Test-AutoBuild - a framework for continuous, unatttended software builds
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=205032 Summary: Review Request: perl-Test-AutoBuild - a framework for continuous, unatttended software builds 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://berrange.com/~dan/fedora-review/perl-Test-AutoBuild/Test-AutoBuild.spec SRPM URL: http://berrange.com/~dan/fedora-review/perl-Test-AutoBuild/perl-Test-AutoBuild-1.2.0-1.src.rpm Description: Test-AutoBuild is a Perl framework for performing continuous, unattended, automated software builds. It is targetted at upstream developers, rather than package distributors. It provides a workflow engine for performing continuous integration. It checks source out of an SCM repository; then builds it, tests it, installs it packages it; Finally it publishes any build artifacts, build logs, code reports, packages HTML status pages to HTTP/FTP site. This is repeated 24x7, scheduled via cron. The core of software is written in Perl, but it calls out to command line utils for integration with a variety of SCM systems. The SCM systems supported are CVS, GNU Arch, Subversion, Mercurial, SVK and Perforce. The spec file is setup such that the modules for each SCM system are provided in separate sub-RPMs. This split was repeatedly requested by users, since if they're using one SCM system (eg Subversion), they did not want to have to install the other 6 SCM systems their huge dependancy chains. In addition to the sub-RPMs for each SCM system, there is one further sub-RPM called '-account'. This creates a user account 'builder' and a directory structure under '/var/lib/builder' populated with all the files neccessary to get an instance of the autobuild engine up running. rpmlint will flag files in this sub-RPM as using a non-standard user account, however, this user account is created in the %post script of the sub-RPM. cf. mock RPM creating its own group directory in /var/lib/mock. I have also patched the upstream tar.gz to remove the module which calls 'yum-arch' since this no longer appears to be distributed in Fedora. This is my second Fedora Extras submission, although I still need sponsership. My other submission is bug 205029 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205032] Review Request: perl-Test-AutoBuild - a framework for continuous, unatttended software builds
Please 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-Test-AutoBuild - a framework for continuous, unatttended software builds https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205032 [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 204343] Review Request: qcomicbook - a comic book viewing 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: qcomicbook - a comic book viewing program https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204343 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 15:25 EST --- + Built and run on fc5 x86_64. Also built on fc6 x86_64. + Sucessfully extracted .tar.gz, .tar.bz, and .zip files. + I agree with comment 6 - It does not appear in my Gnome menus for some reason. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189315] Review Request: ardour
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ardour https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189315 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 15:29 EST --- As discussed in IRC, move the desktop file out of the spec before import and this is APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 204164] Review Request: perl-LWP-Authen-Wsse - Library for enabling X-WSSE authentication in LWP
Please 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-LWP-Authen-Wsse - Library for enabling X-WSSE authentication in LWP https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204164 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 15:32 EST --- I'll assume that the BuildRequires: perl(Digest::SHA1) is added to the spec for the purposes of this review. * source files match upstream: d611b72884406ed92b7920be76bb3a94 LWP-Authen-Wsse-0.05.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. O BuildRequires are proper (BR: perl is not necessary; assuming BR: perl(Digest::SHA1) is there). * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: perl(LWP::Authen::Wsse) perl-LWP-Authen-Wsse = 0.05-1.fc6 = perl = 0:5.004 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(Digest::SHA1) perl(English) perl(MIME::Base64) perl(constant) perl(strict) perl(warnings) * %check is present and the single test passes: All tests successful. Files=1, Tests=1, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.01 cusr + 0.02 csys = 0.03 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. * no libtool .la droppings. APPROVED, assuming you add that missing BR. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 204439] Review Request: perl-POE-Component-SimpleDBI - Asynchronous non-blocking DBI calls in POE made simple
Please 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-SimpleDBI - Asynchronous non-blocking DBI calls in POE made simple https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204439 [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 204177] Review Request: digikam-doc - digiKam and Showfoto documentation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: digikam-doc - digiKam and Showfoto documentation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204177 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 15:42 EST --- I'm not official reviewer and I didn't review any package, so I'll have to dig through documentation and see how things are working, then I could review your 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 205030] Review Request: atomix - Little mind game where you have to build molecules out of atoms lying around
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: atomix - Little mind game where you have to build molecules out of atoms lying around https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205030 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 15:50 EST --- builds fine in mock with no real hiccups. rpmlint obviously gives the same results. As soon as you fix the two errors from rpmlint and address #1, I'll do the full 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 205029] Review Request: autobuild-applet - a GNOME applet for monitoring Test-AutoBuild build status
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: autobuild-applet - a GNOME applet for monitoring Test-AutoBuild build status https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205029 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 15:52 EST --- Couple of quick items: 1. Desktop file is incorrectly handled. Refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-254ddf07aae20a23ced8cecc219d8f73926e9755 2. Duplicate BuildRequires: gtk2-devel (provided by libgnomeui-devel) 3. Unnecessary Requires: python, libgnome, libgnomeui. sonames from devel packages should pull these in. 4. Missing necessary requires on GConf for schemas installation, and probably should use the standard gconf scriptlets for FE packages. Refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets?action=showredirect=ScriptletSnippets#head-6c2101d8f810cc95c677c8c27f43573b0bc23cb1 Minor: 1. Preferred buildroot. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-f196e7b2477c2f5dd97ef64e8eacddfb517f1aa1 If I get some free time this weekend I'll try to do a more 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 205030] Review Request: atomix - Little mind game where you have to build molecules out of atoms lying around
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: atomix - Little mind game where you have to build molecules out of atoms lying around https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205030 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 15:55 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) You're missing find-langs from the spec file - there are a lot of translation files in there. rpmlint throws up two errors for the rpm package zero-length /var/lib/games/atomix.scores The directory /var/lib/games is not writable by the 'games' group. In order for the application to write to its own scoreboard file, it must create the scoreboard file (and make it group writable) as part of the install process. This is acceptable. non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/atomix 02755 This is acceptable for a game that is setgid 'games' for writing to a shared scoreboard file. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193894] Review Request: ant-contrib - A collection of tasks for Ant
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ant-contrib - A collection of tasks for Ant https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193894 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 16:00 EST --- $ ll /var/tmp/ant-contrib-1.0-0.3.b2-root-ifoox/usr/lib/gcj/ant-contrib/ant-contrib-1.0.jar.so -rwxr-xr-x 1 ifoox ifoox 1356724 Sep 2 15:53 /var/tmp/ant-contrib-1.0-0.3.b2-root-ifoox/usr/lib/gcj/ant-contrib/ant-contrib-1.0.jar.so So it looks like valid 755 permissions. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 182175] Review Request: libast - handy routines and drop-in substitutes for some good-but-non-portable functions (needed by eterm)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libast - handy routines and drop-in substitutes for some good-but-non-portable functions (needed by eterm) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=182175 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |NEW Keywords||Reopened Resolution|WONTFIX | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 16:05 EST --- (In reply to comment #17) Sorry, should've specified. libast 0.7.1 in CVS has a LICENSE file. You can pull the tarball from the cAos SRPM if you'd like: http://mirror.caosity.org/cAos-2/ext/autobuilder/i386/00_LOGS/e/libast/SRPMS/libast-0.7.1-0.20060818.src.rpm Thanks, new package available: SPEC: http://web.phys.ntnu.no/~terjeros/eterm/libast.spec SRPM: http://web.phys.ntnu.no/~terjeros/eterm/libast-0.7.1-0.1.20060818cvs.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 182173] Review Request: eterm - a color vt102 terminal emulator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: eterm - a color vt102 terminal emulator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=182173 Bug 182173 depends on bug 182175, which changed state. Bug 182175 Summary: Review Request: libast - handy routines and drop-in substitutes for some good-but-non-portable functions (needed by eterm) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=182175 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution|WONTFIX | Status|CLOSED |NEW -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 204439] Review Request: perl-POE-Component-SimpleDBI - Asynchronous non-blocking DBI calls in POE made simple
Please 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-SimpleDBI - Asynchronous non-blocking DBI calls in POE made simple https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204439 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 16:14 EST --- Another standard spanspec-generated Perl package; no surprises here. * source files match upstream: a1c287b5297ceef014910722f3ce8b3f POE-Component-SimpleDBI-1.12.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::SimpleDBI) = 1.12 perl(POE::Component::SimpleDBI::SubProcess) = 1.09 perl-POE-Component-SimpleDBI = 1.12-1.fc6 = perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(Carp) perl(DBI) perl(Error) perl(POE) perl(POE::Filter::Line) perl(POE::Filter::Reference) perl(POE::Session) perl(POE::Wheel::Run) perl(strict) perl(warnings) * %check is present and all tests pass: All tests successful. Files=1, Tests=2, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.10 cusr + 0.04 csys = 0.14 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. * 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 181035] Review Request: luks-tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: luks-tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181035 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 16:26 EST --- Hey Jochen. You moved this to FE-REVIEW, but didn't assign it to yourself. I am doing that now. If you are not going to review this, go ahead and reassign to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and set it back to block FE-NEW. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205030] Review Request: atomix - Little mind game where you have to build molecules out of atoms lying around
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: atomix - Little mind game where you have to build molecules out of atoms lying around https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205030 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 16:27 EST --- Okay, give #4 Review -- Good : Spec file readable and in US English No ownership problems with directories No devel package (so that bit can be ignored!) Upstream md5sum = package md5sum Builds cleanly in mock (i386) No dupes in rpms Package includes documentation Correctly creates it's own localdir instead of polluting Consistent use of macros Uses dist and smp_flags Software actually works No suprious permissions in the rpms Needs work Needs to include find-lang Once the needs work has been attended to, I'm happy for this to go 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 188435] Review Request: glibrary-1.0.1
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: glibrary-1.0.1 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188435 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 16:36 EST --- This package is APPROVED, but I don't see that it's been imported/built. Please import and close this bug with NEXTRELEASE. (You should probibly make sure you own the datadir/name as mentioned in comment #4. 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 187236] Review Request: smixer - A simple interface to /dev/mixer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: smixer - A simple interface to /dev/mixer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187236 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |201449 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 16:38 EST --- Because there was no response from the reporter for nearly 5 months closed 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 190144] Review Request: hevea - LaTeX to HTML translator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hevea - LaTeX to HTML translator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190144 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 16:41 EST --- It might be more clear to submit a new bug for the documentation issue, perhaps new 'hevea-docs' package submission? Folks looking at this without reading might assume since the package was APPROVED that the question about the docs is moot. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163778, 189685 |163776 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 16:41 EST --- I'm moving this back to FE-NEW as the original reviewer has vanished without trace. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189685] Review Request: Anjuta-2.0.x
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Anjuta-2.0.x https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189685 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn|197814 | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 190156] Review Request: php-pear-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: php-pear-HTTP https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190156 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 16:45 EST --- Looks like the guidelines got finalized and this package was built and pushed out. I am going to close this NEXTRELEASE. Feel free to re-open if I am doing so in error. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191389] Review Request: oooqs2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: oooqs2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191389 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 16:49 EST --- This package was imported, but doesn't seem to have been built yet. Is there a issue with the build? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 174021] Review Request: aplus-fsf - Advanced APL Interpreter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: aplus-fsf - Advanced APL Interpreter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=174021 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 16:53 EST --- This package was approved and imported and built. This bugzilla ticket should be closed as NEXTRELEASE. Bugs in this package should be filed against the aplus-fsf componet in bugzilla directly. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 188461] Review Request: xmms-musepack - Mpegplus (mpc) playback plugin for XMMS
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xmms-musepack - Mpegplus (mpc) playback plugin for XMMS https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188461 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 16:56 EST --- This package has been imported and built. Can this request be closed 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 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] 2006-09-02 16:59 EST --- It's been almost a week, and I have seen no sign of objection on the fedora- games-list (from looking at the archives at least). I would expect someone would have spoken up by now if there were objections... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 182254] Review Request: SS5
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: SS5 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=182254 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 17:02 EST --- Since this package has been imported and released, can we close this request as NEXTRELEASE? Additional support can be found on the extras-list, via email with your sponsor, or on the #fedora-extras irc channel. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 204162] Review Request: perl-Heap - Perl extension for keeping data partially sorted
Please 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-Heap - Perl extension for keeping data partially sorted https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204162 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 17:17 EST --- Whats the status of this package? I don't see it on CVSSyncNeeded any longer, but its still doesn't have CVS devel files or a owners.list entry. Can you just try importing it again over the old removed devel branch? It looks like the files were totally removed from CVS, even the old revisions... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 204162] Review Request: perl-Heap - Perl extension for keeping data partially sorted
Please 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-Heap - Perl extension for keeping data partially sorted https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204162 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 17:25 EST --- Oops. I just typoed. The old revsions are there just fine. cvs co perl-Heap cvs co -r perl-Heap-0_71-1 perl-Heap/devel/ For more information on using the Fedora source code repositories, please visit http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/UsingCvs U perl-Heap/devel/.cvsignore U perl-Heap/devel/Makefile U perl-Heap/devel/perl-Heap.spec U perl-Heap/devel/sources Now you have the last revision from cvs. Import your changes and check in, and don't forget to add to owners.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 204598] Review Request: geda-gschem - Electronics schematics editor
Please 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-gschem - Electronics schematics editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204598 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 17:30 EST --- Updated: Spec URL: http://chitlesh.googlepages.com/geda-gschem.spec SRPM URL: http://chitlesh.googlepages.com/geda-gschem-20060123-6.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 205040] New: Review Request: geda-gnetlist - Netlister for the gEDA project
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=205040 Summary: Review Request: geda-gnetlist - Netlister for the gEDA project 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.funpic.de/rpm/geda-gnetlist.spec SRPM URL: http://chitlesh.funpic.de/rpm/geda-gnetlist-20060123-3.src.rpm Description: description here -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205040] Review Request: geda-gnetlist - Netlister for the 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-gnetlist - Netlister for the gEDA project https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205040 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 17:44 EST --- *** Bug 177113 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 177113] Review Request: geda-gnetlist - netlist generator 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-gnetlist - netlist generator for gEDA circuit design software https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177113 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|WONTFIX |DUPLICATE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 17:43 EST --- http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Policy/StalledReviews *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 205040 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205040] Review Request: geda-gnetlist - Netlister for the 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-gnetlist - Netlister for the gEDA project https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205040 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 17:45 EST --- %description Gnetlist generates netlists from schematics drawn with gschem (the gEDA schematic editor). Possible output formats are: - native - tango - spice - allegro - PCB - verilog and others. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205041] New: Review Request: tellico - collection manager
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=205041 Summary: Review Request: tellico - collection manager 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.fc.up.pt/pessoas/jamatos/fedora-extras/tellico.spec SRPM URL: http://www.fc.up.pt/pessoas/jamatos/fedora-extras/tellico-1.2-1.src.rpm Description: Tellico is a collection manager for KDE. It includes default collections for books, bibliographies, comic books, videos, music, coins, stamps, trading cards, and wines, and also allows custom collections. Unlimited user-defined fields are allowed. Filters are available to limit the visible entries by definable criteria. Full customization for printing is possible through editing the default XSLT file. It can import CSV, Bibtex, and Bibtexml and export CSV, HTML, Bibtex, Bibtexml, and PilotDB. Entries may be imported directly from Amazon.com. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205043] Review Request: geda-gattrib - Attribute editor 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-gattrib - Attribute editor for gEDA https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205043 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 18:06 EST --- *** Bug 177413 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 177413] Review Request: geda-gattrib - attribute editor 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-gattrib - attribute editor for gEDA project https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177413 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|WONTFIX |DUPLICATE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 18:06 EST --- http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Policy/StalledReviews *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 205043 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205040] Review Request: geda-gnetlist - Netlister for the 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-gnetlist - Netlister for the gEDA project https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205040 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 18:25 EST --- Usage: view the schema gschem /usr/share/gEDA/examples/stack_1.sch convert the schema into a netlist gnetlist -g geda -o stack.net /usr/share/gEDA/examples/stack_1.sch kwrite/gedit stack.net -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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] 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. Summary: Review Request: mousepad - A simple text editor for Xfce https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204258 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 19:54 EST --- REVIEW for 3e94740de010b2285fc8711336538fe6 mousepad-0.2.6-2.fc6.src.rpm MUST items: OK - rpmlint quite on all packages OK - package meets naming guidelines OK - spec file meets naming guidelines OK - package meets package guidelines OK - license open-source compatible (GPL) OK - license in specfile matches actual license OK - license included in %doc OK - spec file in American English OK - spec file is legible OK - source in SRPM matches upstream source (md5 f8c23b1de6d23927729c477689883c38) OK - package builds on i386 OK - all build dependencies listed BuildRequires OK - none of the exceptions of packaging guidelines in BuildRequires OK - locales handled correctly with %find_lang OK - no shared libs OK - package is not relocatable OK - package owns all directories that it creates OK - no duplicate files in %files section OK - permissions and %defattr correct OK - clean section with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT present OK - macro usage consistent OK - code, not content OK - no large docs OK - docs don't affect runtime OK - no headers or static libs OK - no pkgconfig files OK - no libtool archives OK - mousepad.desktop included and correctly installed OK - package doesn't own files/directories owned by other packages SHOULD items: OK - package builds in mock (Core 5 and 6) OK - package functions as described OK - mime type correctly installed with scriptlet from wiki OK - package uses disttag APPROVED Note: Don't forget Requires(post): desktop-file-utils Requires(postun): desktop-file-utils if you are planning to build this for Core 4 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 203662] Review Request: dx - Open source version of IBM's Visualization Data Explorer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: dx - Open source version of IBM's Visualization Data Explorer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203662 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 20:07 EST --- http://rpm.greysector.net/extras/dx.spec http://rpm.greysector.net/extras/dx-4.4.0-3.src.rpm - removed -samples, will package separately - disable java parts completely for now - fixed build on fc6 - moved non-binary stuff to _datadir -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205057] New: Review Request: dx-samples - OpenDX Examples
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=205057 Summary: Review Request: dx-samples - OpenDX Examples 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://rpm.greysector.net/extras/dx-samples.spec SRPM URL: http://rpm.greysector.net/extras/dx-samples-4.4.0-1.src.rpm Description: Example files and tutorials for OpenDX. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 203662] Review Request: dx - Open source version of IBM's Visualization Data Explorer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: dx - Open source version of IBM's Visualization Data Explorer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203662 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||205057 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 205057] Review Request: dx-samples - OpenDX Examples
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: dx-samples - OpenDX Examples https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205057 [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 193059] Review Request: ibmasm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ibmasm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193059
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 20:26 EST ---
Builds cleanly, rpmlint complains on the -devel package
W: summary-ended-with-dot
E: summary-too-long
W: no-docs (not worried by)
E: script-without-shellbank %{_includedir}/ibmasm/rsa.h and libibmasm.h
The errors need fixing (the last one is probably just a case of setting the
permission to 644 for each file)
Not building in mock
Executing /usr/sbin/mock-helper chroot
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-i386-core/root /sbin/runuser - root -c
/sbin/runuser -c 'rpmbuild -ba --target i386 --nodeps
/builddir/build/SPECS/ibmasm.spec' mockbuild
error: File /builddir/build/SOURCES/ibmasm_user_3.0-9.fc6.tar.bz2: No such file
or directory
(this could well be my system, but it's working on other packages correctly)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 [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 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] 2006-09-02 20:59 EST ---
A few quick notes before I start a formal review:
1.
$ rpmbuild -bi autogen.spec
error: bad date in %changelog: Say Aug 26 2006 Paul F. Johnson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 5.8.5-3
Should be Sat, I think.
After fixing that, I still can't build it:
$ rpmbuild -bi autogen.spec
error: Failed build dependencies:
libopts-devel is needed by autogen-5.8.5-3.x86_64
# yum install libopts-devel
[...]
No Match for argument: libopts-devel
2.
BuildRequires: guile-devel, libxml2-devel, libopts-devel libtool
Please don't mix commas and spaces for separators.
3.
No %{_smp_mflags} in make invocations and no comment why it should be omitted.
4.
mv %{buildroot}/%{_bindir}/columns %{buildroot}/%{_bindir}/autogen.columns
mv %{buildroot}/%{_bindir}/getdefs %{buildroot}/%{_bindir}/autogen.getdefs
I think the convention is to use $file.$alternative-package, not
$alternative-package.$file. See postfix and sendmail.
5.
%description
AutoGen is a tool designed to simplify the creation and maintenance of
programes that contain large amounts of repetitious text.
^
Should be programs, I think.
6.
%description devel
Development files for autogen
Description doesn't end with a full stop.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191389] Review Request: oooqs2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: oooqs2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191389 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 21:39 EST --- ppc build failed and i havent had a chance to work out why 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 205059] New: Review Request: perl-POE-Filter-Zlib - POE filter wrapped around Compress::Zlib
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=205059 Summary: Review Request: perl-POE-Filter-Zlib - POE filter wrapped around Compress::Zlib Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/POE-Filter-Zlib/ OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com SRPM URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/perl-POE-Filter-Zlib-1.4-1.fc5.src.rpm SPEC URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/perl-POE-Filter-Zlib.spec Description: POE::Filter::Zlib provides a POE filter for performing compression and uncompression using Compress::Zlib. It is suitable for use with POE::Filter::Stackable. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205059] Review Request: perl-POE-Filter-Zlib - POE filter wrapped around Compress::Zlib
Please 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-Filter-Zlib - POE filter wrapped around Compress::Zlib https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205059 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||163776 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 [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 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 [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 204258] 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. Summary: Review Request: mousepad - A simple text editor for Xfce https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204258 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 23:35 EST --- Thanks for the review. Imported and built for devel. 15890 (mousepad): Build on target fedora-development-extras succeeded. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201873] Review Request: wmix - Dockapp mixer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: wmix - Dockapp mixer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201873 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-03 00:09 EST --- Hey Patrice, I see you've imported wmix into cvs. Please don't forget to close this bug as NEXTRELEASE when the package is built. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205060] New: Review Request: perl-Sub-Name - Name -- or rename -- a sub
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=205060 Summary: Review Request: perl-Sub-Name - Name -- or rename -- a sub Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Sub-Name/ OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com SRPM URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/perl-Sub-Name-0.02-1.fc5.src.rpm SPEC URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/perl-Sub-Name.spec Description: This module allows one to name or rename subroutines, including anonymous ones. Note that this is mainly for aid in debugging; you still cannot call the sub by the new name (w/o some deep magic). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205060] Review Request: perl-Sub-Name - Name -- or rename -- a sub
Please 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-Sub-Name - Name -- or rename -- a sub https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205060 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||163776 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194027] Review Request: metisse - Experimental X desktop with OpenGL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: metisse - Experimental X desktop with OpenGL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194027 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-03 00:29 EST --- I'm orphaning nucleo for FC6 and giving up on metisse. If anyone wants to take this over be my guest. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are 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 Alias: phpDocumentor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201502 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-03 00:33 EST --- There is a new and improved way to do the setup and build sections, see bug #198706 we are trying to get this into the newrpmspec command. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192583] Review Request: php-pear-XML-Parser - XML parsing class based on PHP's bundled expat
Please 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-XML-Parser - XML parsing class based on PHP's bundled expat Alias: php-pear-XML-Parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192583 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-03 00:39 EST --- Hi Remi, can you update the %setup and %install sections to the new cleaner way shown here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=135449 More info at bug #198706 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
