[Bug 193531] Review Request: kicad - Electronic schematic diagrams and printed circuit board artwork
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kicad - Electronic schematic diagrams and printed circuit board artwork https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193531 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||CURRENTRELEASE OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| Fixed In Version||kicad-2006.06.26-5 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-15 03:55 EST --- (In reply to comment #28) Now that its added it should have it's own bugzilla component to report bugs. Please close this bug again as NEXTRELEASE and file a new bug against kicad... True, I should file a new bug: (see 206602) Closing 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 205912] Review Request: Thunar - Thunar File 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: Thunar - Thunar File Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205912
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-15 04:32 EST ---
We're getting near.
* There are dependencies for the devel package that are missing.
It may need more investigation, but looks like one need at least:
Requires: exo-devel = 0.3.1.10
* doc files moved to %docs should be removed from %_datadir/doc/Thunar.
* some files are listed twice, becacuse of:
%{_datadir}/Thunar/
%{_datadir}/Thunar/sendto/thunar-sendto-email.desktop
It should be
%dir %{_datadir}/Thunar/
%dir %{_datadir}/Thunar/sendto/
%{_datadir}/Thunar/sendto/thunar-sendto-email.desktop
or
%{_datadir}/Thunar/
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205755] Review Request: elsa - manages group of processes and allows accounting
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: elsa - manages group of processes and allows accounting https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205755 [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 165230] Review Request: Eclipse Graphical Editing Framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Eclipse Graphical Editing Framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=165230 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-15 09:06 EST --- I actually already submitted GEF and it was approved :) That was a new version with a new way of building. Sorry to take this from you, Aaron, but I know you're busy and not involved everyday with this like I am. This bug should be closed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 165230] Review Request: Eclipse Graphical Editing Framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Eclipse Graphical Editing Framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=165230 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||WONTFIX OtherBugsDependingO|163778 | nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-15 09:10 EST --- Closing as WONTFIX then... better than staying idle anyway ;-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205136] Review Request: gg2 - GNU Gadu 2 - free talking
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gg2 - GNU Gadu 2 - free talking https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205136 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-15 09:24 EST --- http://rpm.greysector.net/extras/gg2.spec Updated spec builds cleanly in fc5 and fc6 mock. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 199108] Review Request: gutenprint: Printer Drivers Package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gutenprint: Printer Drivers Package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199108 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-15 09:58 EST --- (In reply to comment #49) This package builds fine and installs ok alongside gimp-print. Unfortunately, I only have one printer here and it's being cranky. I am able to select the gutenprint drivers in system-config-printer and in the cups admin interface. Can some more of the folks watching this review try the package out and see if they run into any problems? It's looking ok here from prelim testing... I currently don't have hardware at hand to test it. Just my 2 cent: I'd say just approve this package if it looks okay otherwise and if the packagers made sure it works -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205755] Review Request: elsa - manages group of processes and allows accounting
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: elsa - manages group of processes and allows accounting https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205755 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||163776 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-15 10:38 EST --- For some reason the FE-NEW blocker was removed from this ticket. It will never get reviewed if it doesn't show up in the FE-NEW list, so I'll re-add it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192313] Review Request: koan
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: koan
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192313
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-15 11:14 EST ---
Two small comments:
* Don't define the %name macro manually, setting 'Name:' will do that for you
* The way you define INSTALLED_FILES leads to
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/koan/ and subdirs to not be owned by koan and
sticking around after an uninstall. The %files section should read something
like
%files
%defattr(-,root,root)
%{_bindir}/koan
/usr/lib/python?.?/site-packages/koan
%{_mandir}/man1/koan.1.gz
* Just as a suggestion that won't block this package: since you are upstream for
this, you should include a copy of the GPL in COPYING, and %doc it in the
specfile
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 192313] Review Request: koan
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: koan https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192313 [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 192311] Review Request: cobbler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: cobbler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192311 [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 205798] Review Request: xine-lib - The Xine 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: xine-lib - The Xine library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205798 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-15 12:06 EST --- No idea. Some packages have been waiting a long time, eg. mkvtoolnix 9+ months in bug 177134. See also http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-August/msg00199.html There was a word from someone that getting the legal queue moving would be put on the Board's agenda, but I haven't heard more about that, and summaries for the two last Board meetings seem to be missing from Wiki. Rex, any news? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205798] Review Request: xine-lib - The Xine 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: xine-lib - The Xine library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205798 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-15 12:25 EST --- Rex, any news? Other than the last 2 FPB meetings weren't held (for various reasons). I'll make sure it's discussed by FPB at next opportunity. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205798] Review Request: xine-lib - The Xine 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: xine-lib - The Xine library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205798 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-15 12:31 EST --- How is this package going to coexist with the various xine-libs available from other repos and legally used by people in countries with no software patents ? Since xine-lib has to be crippled to make it into Extras, won't it create an unnecessary annoyance ? Does it add real value to FE ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205136] Review Request: gg2 - GNU Gadu 2 - free talking
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gg2 - GNU Gadu 2 - free talking https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205136 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-15 12:44 EST --- MUST items: * rpmlint output: W: gg2 mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs W: gg2 doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/gg2-2.2.9/gg2sms /usr/bin/perl W: gg2 doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/gg2-2.2.9/mkgg2snap /bin/sh W: gg2 doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/gg2-2.2.9/plugin_example/build.sh / bin/sh W: gg2-arts no-documentation W: gg2-devel no-documentation W: gg2-dockapp no-documentation W: gg2-esound no-documentation W: gg2-gadu-gadu no-documentation W: gg2-jabber no-documentation W: gg2-systray no-documentation W: gg2-tlen no-documentation W: gg2-xosd no-documentation * package is named well * spec file is named well * package meets Packaging Guidelines * package is licensed with an GPL open-source compatible license * License field matches actual license * license is included in %doc * spec is legible * md5sums are matching (e12c2153993dbbf66f8cefa3c628e7cd) * package succesfully compiles on x86_64 * BRs are listed properly * spec handles locales properly * proper %post and %postun sections * not relocatable * package owns its directories * no duplicates in %files * every %files section includes %defattr * proper %clean section * no need to doc subpackage * .pc files and headers are in -devel * .la file in -devel THINGS to do: * cosmetics: fix warning with mixed-spaces-and-tabs in spec * remove unnecessary dependiences (caused by %doc files) by adding following lines to %prep: chmod -x contrib/gg2sms chmod -x contrib/mkgg2snap chmod -x contrib/plugin_example/build.sh * you probably should remove libgg2_core.la from -devel subpackage Fix things mentioned above, and I'll approve this package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205884] Review Request: perl-Email-Valid - Check validity of internet email address
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Email-Valid - Check validity of internet email address https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205884 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-15 14:03 EST --- I grabbed a copy of the SRPM from: http://distro.ibiblio.org/pub/linux/distributions/aurora/scratch/spot-review/perl-Email-Valid-0.176-1.src.rpm and updated it with the above attached specfile. The result looks better. rpmlint says: W: perl-Email-Valid mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (no big deal; the errant tab is on the BuildRequireas: bind-utils line if you want to remove it). The only real issue I see is that you manually specify Requires: perl(Mail::Address) which is duplicated by RPM's automatic dependency generation and thus should be removed. Some tests are skipped; running with TEST_VERBOSE=1 shows this: ok 12 # skip your dns appears missing or failing to resolve ok 13 # skip your dns appears missing or failing to resolve This is due to building in mock with no DNS config. ok 14 # skip tests require Net::Domain::TLD 1.65 ok 15 # skip tests require Net::Domain::TLD 1.65 ok 16 # skip tests require Net::Domain::TLD 1.65 Net::Domain::TLD is not in the repo so this is unavoidable at this time. Review: * source files match upstream: c71a350965c97473af80edfa1bff0b63 Email-Valid-0.176.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). * package installs properly * rpmlint is silent. X final provides and requires are sane: perl(Email::Valid) = 0.176 perl-Email-Valid = 0.176-2.fc6 = perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(Carp) perl(File::Spec) perl(IO::File) perl(Mail::Address) X perl(Mail::Address) perl(strict) perl(vars) * %check is present and all tests pass: 5/16 skipped: various reasons All tests successful, 5 subtests skipped. Files=3, Tests=18, 36 wallclock secs ( 0.18 cusr + 0.04 csys = 0.22 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. 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 201000] Review Request: libFoundation - A free implementation of OpenStep's Foundation Kit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libFoundation - A free implementation of OpenStep's Foundation Kit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-15 14:11 EST --- since this is one possible implementation of part of the OpenStep specification I *seriously* doubt we will ever see another implementation (at least in our lifetimes...) (; Let's not invent solutions for problems that don't (yet) exist. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 206693] New: Review Request: KTechlab - Development and simulation of microcontrollers and electronic circuits
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=206693 Summary: Review Request: KTechlab - Development and simulation of microcontrollers and electronic circuits Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://chitlesh.googlepages.com/ktechlab.spec SRPM URL: http://chitlesh.googlepages.com/ktechlab-0.3-1.src.rpm Description: KTechlab is a development and simulation environment for microcontrollers and electronic circuits, distributed under the GNU General Public License. KTechlab consists of several well-integrated components: A circuit simulator, capable of simulating logic, linear devices and some nonlinear devices. * Integration with gpsim, allowing PICs to be simulated in circuit. * A schematic editor, which provides a rich real-time feedback of the simulation. * A flowchart editor, allowing PIC programs to be constructed visually. * MicroBASIC; a BASIC-like compiler for PICs, written as a companion program to KTechlab. * An embedded Kate part, which provides a powerful editor for PIC programs. * Integrated assembler and disassembler via gpasm and gpdasm. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 206693] Review Request: KTechlab - Development and simulation of microcontrollers and electronic circuits
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: KTechlab - Development and simulation of microcontrollers and electronic circuits https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206693 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-15 14:25 EST --- Some examples at http://ktechlab.org/screenshots/ for testing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194373] Review Request: kdeedu: Educational/Edutainment applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdeedu: Educational/Edutainment applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194373 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-15 14:29 EST --- Ping ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205886] Review Request: perl-File-MMagic-XS - Guess file type with XS
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-File-MMagic-XS - Guess file type with XS https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205886 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-15 14:39 EST --- You're the license czar so if you feel comfortable importing this then I have no objections. * source files match upstream: b8ce9617527a999c85d54fc8a4e88ebc File-MMagic-XS-0.08.tar.gz * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. ? license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text not included upstream. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: XS.so()(64bit) perl(File::MMagic::XS) = 0.08 perl-File-MMagic-XS = 0.08-2.fc6 = perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(File::MMagic) perl(strict) perl(vars) * %check is present and all tests pass: All tests successful. Files=2, Tests=11, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.06 cusr + 0.01 csys = 0.07 CPU) * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * package is not relocatable. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191590] Review Request: fluidsynth-dssi - a FluidSynth DSSI plugin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: fluidsynth-dssi - a FluidSynth DSSI plugin https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191590 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-15 14:44 EST --- The .desktop file should be in a separate file and not inside the spec. You do not need: Requires(post): desktop-file-utils Requires(postun): desktop-file-utils make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT instead of %makeinstall should work, so you must not use %makeinstall see: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-fcaf3e6fcbd51194a5d0dbcfbdd2fcb7791dd002 You do not package COPYING with contains the license. The license seems to be GPL but you wrote LGPL in the spec. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194373] Review Request: kdeedu: Educational/Edutainment applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: kdeedu: Educational/Edutainment applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194373 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-15 14:46 EST --- ping what? the mostly harmless rpmlint warnings? I guess one thing worth fixing is to omit W: kdeedu non-executable-in-bin /usr/bin/pykig.pyo 0644 W: kdeedu non-executable-in-bin /usr/bin/pykig.pyc 0644 from packaging. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 198836] Review Request: freetype1 compatibility FreeType 1.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: freetype1 compatibility FreeType 1.x https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198836 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205884] Review Request: perl-Email-Valid - Check validity of internet email address
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Email-Valid - Check validity of internet email address https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205884 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-15 15:16 EST --- Built. Thanks for the review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205885] Review Request: perl-CGI-Untaint-email - Validate an email address
Please 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-CGI-Untaint-email - Validate an email address https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205885 Bug 205885 depends on bug 205884, which changed state. Bug 205884 Summary: Review Request: perl-Email-Valid - Check validity of internet email address https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205884 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||RAWHIDE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205885] Review Request: perl-CGI-Untaint-email - Validate an email address
Please 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-CGI-Untaint-email - Validate an email address https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205885 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-15 15:53 EST --- The only issue I see is that you have two manual Requires: that duplicate unversioned requires that rpmbuild figures out on its own: perl(Email::Valid) perl(Email::Valid) = 0.13 perl(Mail::Address) perl(Mail::Address) = 1.40 There's probably no point in the versioned Email::Valid require because it was just added to the repo and so there's no older version that might be installed. I don't know about perl(Mail::Address); it looks like the 1.58 came out in 2003, so I think we're pretty much covered there as well. I'd say just go ahead and remove the manual Requires: for those packages and check in. Or, if you really want, filter those two unversioned automatic dependencies and check in. It's up to you. Review: * source files match upstream: 78bb576e038ece67d183d8c3b3ad2165 CGI-Untaint-email-0.03.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). * package installs properly * rpmlint is silent. X final provides and requires are sane: perl(CGI::Untaint::email) = 0.03 perl(Mail::Address::overload) perl-CGI-Untaint-email = 0.03-1.fc6 = perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(CGI::Untaint) = 0.07 X perl(Email::Valid) perl(Email::Valid) = 0.13 X perl(Mail::Address) perl(Mail::Address) = 1.40 perl(base) perl(strict) perl(vars) * %check is present and all tests pass: All tests successful. Files=1, Tests=4, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.06 cusr + 0.01 csys = 0.07 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. APPROVED, assuming you agree with me about the manual Requires: bits. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 206707] New: Review Request: acerhk-kmod - Acer Hotkey driver
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=206707 Summary: Review Request: acerhk-kmod - Acer Hotkey driver 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://student.agh.edu.pl/~grabka/acerhk/acerhk-kmod.spec SRPM URL: http://student.agh.edu.pl/~grabka/acerhk/acerhk-kmod-0.5.34-1.2.6.17_1.2174_FC5.src.rpm Description: This package contains the driver for managing special buttons and wireless antenna on Acer and compatible laptops. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 206708] New: Review Request: main package name here - short summary here
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=206708 Summary: Review Request: main package name here - short summary here 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://student.agh.edu.pl/~grabka/acerhk/acerhk.spec SRPM URL: http://student.agh.edu.pl/~grabka/acerhk/acerhk.spec Description: This package contains the driver for managing special buttons and wireless antenna on Acer and compatible laptops. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 206708] Review Request: acerhk - Acer Hotkey driver
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: acerhk - Acer Hotkey driver https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206708 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: main |Review Request: acerhk - |package name here - short |Acer Hotkey driver |summary 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 199780] Review Request: dstat
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: dstat https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199780 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778, 177841 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-15 17:54 EST --- Congratulations! APPROVING -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 206494] Review Request: ssss - Shamir's secret sharing scheme
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: - Shamir's secret sharing scheme https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206494 [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 205136] Review Request: gg2 - GNU Gadu 2 - free talking
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gg2 - GNU Gadu 2 - free talking https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205136 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-15 19:36 EST --- http://rpm.greysector.net/extras/gg2.spec - removed redundant build deps - removed .la dropping from -devel - made scripts in %%doc non-executable I don't know what to do about that .pc file. It's autogenerated. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205136] Review Request: gg2 - GNU Gadu 2 - free talking
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gg2 - GNU Gadu 2 - free talking https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205136 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-15 20:00 EST --- (In reply to comment #12) I don't know what to do about that .pc file. It's autogenerated. Fix lib/gg2_core.pc.in. It is apparently incorrect. Perhaps you also have to fix configure.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 206494] Review Request: ssss - Shamir's secret sharing scheme
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: - Shamir's secret sharing scheme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206494
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-15 20:03 EST ---
I understand why you can't use the makefile, but I don't understand
$RPM_OPT_FLAGS/%{optflags} on the gcc command line. Surely you only need the
$RPM_OPT_FLAGS bit. This is really the only blocker I see, so I'll go ahead
and approve and you can fix it when you check in.
Review:
* source files match upstream:
24227252aa195a146d09de1df10357a1 -0.5.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 included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
* package installs properly
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
= 0.5-1.fc6
=
libgmp.so.3()(64bit)
* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.
* no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
* package is not relocatable.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no scriptlets present.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.
APPROVED, just fix the gcc command line.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193106] Review Request: gtkmozembedmm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gtkmozembedmm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193106 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-15 20:15 EST --- In reply to comment #4: 1. Yeah, the md5 is going to be diffrent because you change some files and copy them, which changes timestamps. Also, the autogen.sh run each time will have diffrent timestamps, so it's not going to match. Everything looks good with diff however, so I don't think thats a blocker. 2-4: ok. 5. I am getting failures in mock... fc6/i386 gives me: ./configure: line 19134: syntax error near unexpected token `5.6.0' ./configure: line 19134: `GLIBMM_CHECK_PERL(5.6.0)' error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.78710 (%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 200630] Review Request: postgresql_autodoc - PostgreSQL AutoDoc Utility
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: postgresql_autodoc - PostgreSQL AutoDoc Utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200630 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-15 21:48 EST --- As communicated on IRC, this looks good except for having to specify the password on the commandline. Can you poke upstream to see if they can provide a way to prompt for the password interactively? That's really the most secure way and since this isn't likely to be run from a cron job, it's probably the best way to handle it for this program. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205136] Review Request: gg2 - GNU Gadu 2 - free talking
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gg2 - GNU Gadu 2 - free talking https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205136 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-15 22:37 EST --- http://rpm.greysector.net/extras/gg2.spec http://rpm.greysector.net/extras/gg2-2.2.9-6.src.rpm - fix build on devel - patch .pc file not to include RPM_OPT_CFLAGS I've tested my fix of the .pc file. A sample plugin compiles fine. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 201779] Review Request: xfsdump
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xfsdump https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201779 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-15 23:37 EST --- Is there some reason this package hasn't been built 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 196101] Review Request: mimedefang
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mimedefang https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196101 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-15 23:59 EST --- Unfortuantely I have no way to test this; I long ago dumped Sendmail for Exim. But I'll go ahead and review the form of the package and work from the assumption that you've done the necessary testing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205136] Review Request: gg2 - GNU Gadu 2 - free talking
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gg2 - GNU Gadu 2 - free talking https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205136 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-16 00:07 EST --- Well, .pc file is now correct. Then does -devel package really require perl? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 205136] Review Request: gg2 - GNU Gadu 2 - free talking
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gg2 - GNU Gadu 2 - free talking https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205136 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-16 00:17 EST --- Note: even if -devel package doesn't require perl, perl is anyway installed because main package requires perl. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196101] Review Request: mimedefang
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mimedefang https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196101 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-16 00:28 EST --- There seems to be something resembling tests in the tests directory, but I don't see how you would actually run them. I think you actually have to set up the system with the test filter and then send the test messages through it, which wouldn't be doable in an rpm. It looks like RPM's automatic Perl dependency generation gets confused and comes up with duplicated dependencies for perl(Digest::SHA1) and perl(MIME::Tools) with different versioning requirements. Unfortunately these will need to be filtered. Review: * source files match upstream: e55b22dda54c4a3b52e1fbeb9135b0cf mimedefang-2.57.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 included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint has only ignorable errors. X final provides and requires are sane: config(mimedefang) = 2.57-3.fc6 mimedefang = 2.57-3.fc6 = /bin/bash /bin/sh /sbin/chkconfig /sbin/service /usr/bin/perl /usr/sbin/useradd config(mimedefang) = 2.57-3.fc6 libperl.so()(64bit) perl = 0:5.001 X perl(Digest::SHA1) perl(Digest::SHA1) = 2.00 perl(Getopt::Std) perl(IO::Handle) perl(IO::Select) perl(IO::Socket) perl(IO::Stringy) = 1.212 perl(MIME::Base64) = 3.03 perl(MIME::Parser) X perl(MIME::Tools) = 5.410 perl(MIME::Tools) = 5.413 perl(MIME::Words) perl(Mail::SpamAssassin) = 1.6 perl(POSIX) perl(Socket) perl(Sys::Hostname) perl(Sys::Syslog) perl(Time::Local) perl(lib) perl(strict) perl(vars) perl(warnings) perl-MailTools = 1.15 sendmail-cf = 8.12.0 * %check is not present; running test suite not feasible within rpmbuild. * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * package is not relocatable. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * scriptlets are OK (adding a service and controlling the daemon) * 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. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 196570] Review Request: mirage
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mirage https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196570 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-16 00:29 EST --- Given your recent announcement, do you still wish to continue with the submission of this package? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 206693] Review Request: KTechlab - Development and simulation of microcontrollers and electronic circuits
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: KTechlab - Development and simulation of microcontrollers and electronic circuits https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206693 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-16 01:41 EST --- Some remarks: 1. I don't understand, why you - BR: autoconf It's not required. Building the package invokes autoheader due to a bug somewhere in the source tarball, nevertheless this invocation of autoheader does nothing. - BR: libtool No idea why you do this. - R: gpsim The package doesn't directly depend on gpsim. It depends on the libs from gpsim, which are automatically being pulled in by rpm. - R: gputils I don't see any dependency on this package. 2. The tarball is mal-packaged. It ships an autom4te.cache/. I'd suggest to rm -rf autom4te.cache in %prep. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
